Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Szostak, R."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Szostak, R.: Speaking truth to power in classification : response to Fox's review of my work; KO 39:4, 300 (2013) 0.00
    0.0015704506 = product of:
      0.023556758 = sum of:
        0.023556758 = product of:
          0.047113515 = sum of:
            0.047113515 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047113515 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:35:05
  2. Szostak, R.: Skepticism and knowledge organization (2014) 0.00
    9.1609627E-4 = product of:
      0.013741443 = sum of:
        0.013741443 = product of:
          0.027482886 = sum of:
            0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027482886 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  3. Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory (2010) 0.00
    4.5571616E-4 = product of:
      0.006835742 = sum of:
        0.006835742 = product of:
          0.013671484 = sum of:
            0.013671484 = weight(_text_:information in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013671484 = score(doc=5107,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Content
    Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.
    Footnote
    Erwiderung darauf: Hjørland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077
  4. Szostak, R.: ¬A pluralistic approach to the philosophy of classification : a case for "public knowledge" (2015) 0.00
    3.987516E-4 = product of:
      0.005981274 = sum of:
        0.005981274 = product of:
          0.011962548 = sum of:
            0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011962548 = score(doc=5541,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.
    Theme
    Information
  5. Szostak, R.: Toward a classification of relationships (2012) 0.00
    3.255793E-4 = product of:
      0.0048836893 = sum of:
        0.0048836893 = product of:
          0.009767379 = sum of:
            0.009767379 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009767379 = score(doc=131,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Several attempts have been made to develop a classification of relationships, but none of these have been widely accepted or applied within information science. It would seem that information scientists, while appreciating the potential value of a classification of relationships, have found all previous classifications to be too complicated in application relative to the benefits they provide. This paper begins by reviewing previous attempts and drawing lessons from these. It then surveys a range of sources within and beyond the field of knowledge organization that can together provide the basis for the development of a novel classification of relationships. One critical insight is that relationships governing causation/influence should be accorded priority.
  6. Szostak, R.: Complex concepts into basic concepts (2011) 0.00
    2.848226E-4 = product of:
      0.004272339 = sum of:
        0.004272339 = product of:
          0.008544678 = sum of:
            0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008544678 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2247-2265
    Theme
    Information
  7. Szostak, R.: Applied Knowledge Organization and the history of the world (2018) 0.00
    2.6310782E-4 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = product of:
          0.0078932345 = sum of:
            0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 4699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0078932345 = score(doc=4699,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4699, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4699)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  8. Szostak, R.; Scharnhorst, A.; Beek, W.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Connecting KOSs and the LOD cloud (2018) 0.00
    2.6310782E-4 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = product of:
          0.0078932345 = sum of:
            0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 4794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0078932345 = score(doc=4794,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4794, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4794)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  9. Smiraglia, R.P.; Szostak, R.: Converting UDC to BCC : comparative approaches to interdisciplinarity (2018) 0.00
    2.6310782E-4 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = product of:
          0.0078932345 = sum of:
            0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0078932345 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  10. Szostak, R.: Classifying relationships (2012) 0.00
    2.3021935E-4 = product of:
      0.00345329 = sum of:
        0.00345329 = product of:
          0.00690658 = sum of:
            0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00690658 = score(doc=1923,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1923, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1923)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    This paper develops a classification of relationships among things, with many potential uses within information science. Unlike previous classifications of relationships, it is hoped that this classification will provide benefits that exceed the costs of application. The major theoretical innovation is to stress the importance of causal relationships, albeit not exclusively. The paper also stresses the advantages of using compounds of simpler terms: verbs compounded with other verbs, adverbs, or things. The classification builds upon a review of the previous literature and a broad inductive survey of potential sources in a recent article in this journal. The result is a classification that is both manageable in size and easy to apply and yet encompasses all of the relationships necessary for classifying documents or even ideas.