Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬A brief introduction to facets in knowledge organization (2017) 0.00 
    0.0023731373 = product of:
  0.023731373 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.015059452 = product of:
      0.045178354 = sum of:
        0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045178354 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033805002 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S.1-6
    Source
    Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee
  2. Smiraglia, R.P.: Facets for clustering and disambiguation : the domain discourse of facets in knowledge organization (2017) 0.00 
    0.0023731373 = product of:
  0.023731373 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
    0.015059452 = product of:
      0.045178354 = sum of:
        0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045178354 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033805002 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S.115-138
    Source
    Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee
  3. Friedman, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Nodes and arcs : concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization (2013) 0.00 
    0.0023043854 = product of:
  0.01728289 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=770,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.0050198175 = product of:
      0.015059452 = sum of:
        0.015059452 = weight(_text_:l in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015059452 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.17565648 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.005844816 = product of:
      0.011689632 = sum of:
        0.011689632 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011689632 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.
    Content
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.1, S.27-48
  4. Ridenour, L.; Smiraglia, R.P.: How interdisciplinary is knowledge organization? : An epistemological view of knowledge organization as a domain (2016) 0.00 
    0.0017282102 = product of:
  0.017282102 = sum of:
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=4880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
    0.010039635 = product of:
      0.030118903 = sum of:
        0.030118903 = weight(_text_:l in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030118903 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S.43-50
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.15
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  5. Beak, J.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Contours of knowledge : core and granularity in the evolution of the DCMI domain (2014) 0.00 
    0.0016373465 = product of:
  0.016373465 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=1415,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.
    Pages
    S.136-143
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.00 
    0.0016373465 = product of:
  0.016373465 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=1420,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    Pages
    S.176-183
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.; Lee, H.-L.: Rethinking the authorship principle (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015700618 = product of:
  0.015700618 = sum of:
    0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064806426 = score(doc=5575,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.007529726 = product of:
      0.022589177 = sum of:
        0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022589177 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.
    Source
    Library trends. 61(2012) no.1, S.35-48
  8. Smiraglia, R.P.: ISKO 12's bookshelf - evolving intension : an editorial (2013) 0.00 
    0.0015534001 = product of:
  0.0155340005 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=636,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The 2012 biennial international research conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization was held August 6-9, in Mysore, India. It was the second international ISKO conference to be held in India (Canada and India are the only countries to have hosted two international ISKO conferences), and for many attendees travel to the exotic Indian subcontinent was a new experience. Interestingly, the mix of people attending was quite different from recent meetings held in Europe or North America. The conference was lively and, as usual, jam-packed with new research. Registration took place on a veranda in the garden of the B. N. Bahadur Institute of Management Sciences where the meetings were held at the University of Mysore. This graceful tree (Figure 1) kept us company and kept watch over our considerations (as indeed it does over the academic enterprise of the Institute). The conference theme was "Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization." The opening and closing sessions fittingly were devoted to serious introspection about the direction of the domain of knowledge organization. This editorial, in line with those following past international conferences, is an attempt to comment on the state of the domain by reflecting domain-analytically on the proceedings of the conference, primarily using bibliometric measures. In general, it seems the domain is secure in its intellectual moorings, as it continues to welcome a broad granular array of shifting research questionsin its intension. It seems that the continual concretizing of the theoretical core of knowledge organization (KO) seems to act as a catalyst for emergent ideas, which can be observed as part of the evolving intension of the domain.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:43:34
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.1, S.3-10
  9. Graf, A.M.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Race & ethnicity in the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee : a case study in the use of domain analysis (2014) 0.00 
    0.0014950562 = product of:
  0.014950562 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=1412,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Scholarly domains have been analyzed using various tools and techniques to reveal complex genealogies of scholarship, authorship, citation and ontology, resulting in not only deeper knowledge of each area studied, but in a better developed set of methodologies for domain exploration in general. While domain analysis itself is being used frequently in LIS, there remain many areas against which domain analytical tools have not yet been applied. This is the case with encyclopedic collections of knowledge, such as that which is being developed as the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee (EMKE) within the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This descriptive study will analyze resources categorized under race and ethnicity from a comprehensive bibliography on the history of metropolitan Milwaukee that was designed to serve those who would research and write entries for the EMKE. Bibliometric and analytic techniques are employed to explore the intension and extension of the domain as it is developing.
    Pages
    S.114-120
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: Shifting intension in knowledge organization : an editorial (2012) 0.00 
    0.0014115097 = product of:
  0.014115097 = sum of:
    0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054005357 = score(doc=630,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:09:49
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.6, S.405-408
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Derivative bibliographic relationships among theological works (1999) 0.00 
    0.0013919314 = product of:
  0.013919314 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=6676,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=6676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=6676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Derivative bibliographic relationships are the primary relationships that exist among the members of a bibliographic family--the set of interrelated works where the relationships among entities express shared semantic or linguistic activity. Derivative bibliographic relationships exist between any new conception of a work and its original source (the progenitor), or its successor, or both. Discipline was a poor predictor of derivative relationships in prior studies of derivative bibliographic relationships. For the present study random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Two sites were chosen to allow a test of the differences in collection development patterns between a university research library and a theological library. Bibliographic families were compiled for each work. Results indicate: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships exist for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works in this study; 2) there is little difference in proportions of derivative bibliographic relationships or in the size of bibliographic families between the two collections; 3) there is a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the size of the bibliographic family); 4) there are significant gaps in coverage of theological bibliographic families online; 5) there is some evidence of differing patterns of derivation between Judaic and Islamic literature and Christian literature; 5) forms and genres are useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature
    Pages
    S.497-506
    Source
    Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods
  12. Leazer, G.H.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families in the library catalog : a qualitative analysis and grounded theory (1999) 0.00 
    0.001312408 = product of:
  0.01312408 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=107,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Forty-five years have passed since Lubetzky outlined the primary objectives of the catalog, which should facilitate the identification of specific bibliographic entities, and the explicit recoguition of works and relationships amongthem. Still, our catalogs are better designed to identify specific bibliographic entities than they are to guide users among the network of potential related editions and translations of works. In this paper, we seck to examine qualitatively some interesting examples of families of related works, defined as bibliographic families. Although the cases described here were derived from a random sample, this is a qualitative analysis. We selected these bibliographic families for their ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Leazer's model, which incorporates relationship taxonomies by Tillett and Smiraglia Qualitatice analysis is intended to produce on explanation of a phenomenou, particularly an identification of any palterns observed. Patterns observed in qualitative analysis can be used to affirm external observations of the same phenomena; conclusions can contribute to what is knoton as grounded theory-a unique explanation grounded in the phenomenon under study. We arrive at two statements of grounded theory concerning bibliographic families: cataloger-generated implicit maps among works are inadequate, and qualitative analysis suggests the complexity of even the smallest bibliographic families. We conclude that user behavior study is needed to suggest which alternative maps are preferable.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 43(1999) no.4, S.191-212
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.00 
    8.902509E-4 = product of:
  0.008902509 = sum of:
    0.004545228 = weight(_text_:in in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004545228 = score(doc=1919,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15491365 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    7.042709E-4 = weight(_text_:s in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      7.042709E-4 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.030030979 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.0036530101 = product of:
      0.0073060202 = sum of:
        0.0073060202 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073060202 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Content
    "1. What is? Many of us equate the principle activity of knowledge organization with that of ontology, which at its essence is the revelation of the structure of a domain. Among the essential choices that must be made in the construction of ontology are those involving "IsA" relationships. "What is a" is the primary question that defines what belongs inside a set and what, therefore, does not. Employing Dahlberg's concept-theoretic is one approach to defining the elements that belong in a set, although there are many other approaches as well. Whatever method is used, once a set is constituted its members will be considered to be like each other in some way, in other words, they are thought to be the same in some manner, or to some degree. Which leads naturally to the question of how alike must two entities be to be declared the same? Or its correlate, how dissimilar must they be to be declared different? Pondering this question led me to think about musical works that are of the genre "variations on a theme by X." In such works a composer uses a musical mnemonic-a melody usually-to draw listeners into the aural experience, and then, subsequent iterations all contain this original mnemonic but surround it or manipulate it in various ways. The result is always iterative but never boring because each iteration is subtly (or not so subtly) different from the last. And the technique allows the character of the original to be explored fully as well as for it to be reinterpreted by the current composer. In the end it is not so unlike, although a lot more interesting than, multiple citations by an author of another's works- say, like the way each time I cite Patrick Wilson it comes out a little differently. Same but different. Sameness and difference turn out to be essential philosophical positions. Many of the philosophical points of view brought to bear on knowledge organization suggest one or more points of view about this essential question. Semiotics (for example) suggests that signs are always being interpreted anew, phenomenology suggests entities might appear differently as a matter of their individual perception. All points of view are useful because they all shed light on formerly dark corners of the essential questions in knowledge organization.
    2. Collocation versus disambiguation Of course, the practical reality is that systems must accommodate dual purposes when they declare entities to be the same or different. We wish at once to collocate or draw together everything that is alike, and at the same time to disambiguate the collocated set. So, the tension between the two purposes holds every system in balance. A set of collocated entities is thought to contain entities that are the same to some degree, but different enough to require an approach to sorting the elements of the set. It reminds me again of Wilson, who said of relevance that sometimes people just want something that serves as a means to some end. What does that suggest about sameness and difference? Perhaps that "more or less the same" or "a little bit different" reveals a sort of fuzzy-set, which opens the brackets around the set of equivalent entities that have been collocated. If so, then it means all the more that the differences, no matter how slight, need to be accounted for in the disambiguation. Of course there is quite a lot of overlap among domains, especially among closely related domains. We can see that in the articles in the present issue of this journal. We have papers that have come from at least three domains, and yet they all treat of knowledge and its conceptual ordering. Yet there is little conformity among the works cited by these four papers. What does that tell us? Perhaps that different domains are a little bit the same?
    3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."
    Date
    12. 6.2008 20:18:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.3-4
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The nature of "a work" : implications for the organization of knowledge (2001) 0.00 
    6.7147816E-4 = product of:
  0.010072172 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
    0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00478075 = score(doc=5983,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 29(2002) no.2, S.107-109 (G. Campbell)
    Pages
    216 S
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: Keywords redux : an editorial (2015) 0.00 
    6.438664E-4 = product of:
  0.009657996 = sum of:
    0.008249454 = weight(_text_:in in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008249454 = score(doc=2099,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2811637 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.1, S.3-7
  16. Salah, A.A.; Gao, C.; Suchecki, K.; Scharnhorst, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The evolution of classification systems : ontogeny of the UDC (2012) 0.00 
    6.355139E-4 = product of:
  0.009532709 = sum of:
    0.00756075 = weight(_text_:in in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00756075 = score(doc=825,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    To classify is to put things in meaningful groups, but the criteria for doing so can be problematic. Study of evolution of classification includes ontogenetic analysis of change in classification over time. We present an empirical analysis of the UDC over the entire period of its development. We demonstrate stability in main classes, with major change driven by 20th century scientific developments. But we also demonstrate a vast increase in the complexity of auxiliaries. This study illustrates an alternative to Tennis scheme-versioning method.
    Pages
    S.51-57
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  17. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.00 
    6.115635E-4 = product of:
  0.009173452 = sum of:
    0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007483202 = score(doc=1119,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 28(2001) no.4, S.192-202
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.: Theoretical considerations in the bibliographic control of music materials in libraries (1985) 0.00 
    5.9159653E-4 = product of:
  0.008873948 = sum of:
    0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006901989 = score(doc=343,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1985) no.3, S.1-16
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: Be careful what you wish for : lacunae in the FRBR family of models (2012) 0.00 
    5.9159653E-4 = product of:
  0.008873948 = sum of:
    0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006901989 = score(doc=1907,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=1907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.360-368
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: Referencing as evidentiary : an editorial (2020) 0.00 
    5.9159653E-4 = product of:
  0.008873948 = sum of:
    0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006901989 = score(doc=5729,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    The referencing habits of scholars, having abandoned physical bibliography for harvesting of digital resources, are in crisis, endangering the bibliographical infrastructure supporting the domain of knowledge organization. Research must be carefully managed and its circumstances controlled. Bibliographical replicability is one important part of the social role of scholarship. References in Knowledge Organization volume 45 (2018) were compiled and analyzed to help visualize the state of referencing in the KO domain. The dependence of science on the ability to replicate is even more critical in a global distributed digital environment. There is great richness in KO that make it even more critical that our scholarly community tend to the relationship between bibliographical verity and the very replicability that is allowing the field to grow theoretically over time.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.1, S.4-12

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 72
  • m 4
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes