Search (28 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Tennis, J.T."
  1. Tennis, J.T.: Versioning concept schemes for persistent retrieval (2006) 0.00
    3.7227443E-4 = product of:
      0.0074454886 = sum of:
        0.0074454886 = weight(_text_:in in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074454886 = score(doc=1956,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19010136 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    Things change. Words change, meaning changes and use changes both words and meaning. In information access systems this means concept schemes such as thesauri or classification schemes change. They always have. Concept schemes that have survived have evolved over time, moving from one version, often called an edition, to the next. If we want to manage how words and meanings - and as a consequence use - change in an effective manner, and if we want to be able to search across versions of concept schemes, we have to track these changes. This paper explores how we might expand SKOS, a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) draft recommendation in order to do that kind of tracking. The Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Core Guide is sponsored by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group. The second draft, edited by Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley, was issued in November 2005. SKOS is a "model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, other types of controlled vocabulary and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies" in RDF. How SKOS handles version in concept schemes is an open issue. The current draft guide suggests using OWL and DCTERMS as mechanisms for concept scheme revision. As it stands an editor of a concept scheme can make notes or declare in OWL that more than one version exists. This paper adds to the SKOS Core by introducing a tracking system for changes in concept schemes. We call this tracking system vocabulary ontogeny. Ontogeny is a biological term for the development of an organism during its lifetime. Here we use the ontogeny metaphor to describe how vocabularies change over their lifetime. Our purpose here is to create a conceptual mechanism that will track these changes and in so doing enhance information retrieval and prevent document loss through versioning, thereby enabling persistent retrieval.
  2. Tennis, J.T.: Function, purpose, predication, and context of information organization frameworks (2006) 0.00
    3.531705E-4 = product of:
      0.00706341 = sum of:
        0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 2520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00706341 = score(doc=2520,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2520, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2520)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    This paper outlines the purposes, predications, functions, and contexts of information organization frameworks; including: bibliographic control, information retrieval, resource discovery, resource description, open access scholarly indexing, personal information management protocols, and social tagging in order to compare and contrast those purposes, predications, functions, and contexts. Information organization frameworks, for the purpose of this paper, consist of information organization systems (classification schemes, taxonomies, ontologies, bibliographic descriptions, etc.), methods of conceiving of and creating the systems, and the work processes involved in maintaining these systems. The paper first outlines the theoretical literature of these information organization frameworks. In conclusion, this paper establishes the first part of an evaluation rubric for a function, predication, purpose, and context analysis.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
  3. Tennis, J.T.: Structure of classification theory : on foundational and the higher layers of classification theory (2016) 0.00
    3.3297235E-4 = product of:
      0.006659447 = sum of:
        0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 4889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006659447 = score(doc=4889,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4889, 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=4889)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    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
  4. Tennis, J.T.: Measured time : imposing a temporal metric to classificatory structures 0.00
    2.9135082E-4 = product of:
      0.005827016 = sum of:
        0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 3529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005827016 = score(doc=3529,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3529, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3529)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
  5. Zolyomi, A.; Tennis, J.T.: Autism prism : a domain analysis examining neurodiversity (2017) 0.00
    2.9135082E-4 = product of:
      0.005827016 = sum of:
        0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005827016 = score(doc=3864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    Autism is a complex neurological phenomenon that affects our society on individual, community, and cultural levels. There is an ongoing dialog between the medical, scientific and autism communities that critiques and molds the meaning of autism. The prevailing social model perspective, the neurodiversity paradigm, views autism as a natural variation in human neurology. Towards the goal of crystallizing the various facets of autism, this paper conducts a domain analysis of neurodiversity. Through this analysis, we explore the dynamics between diagnosis, identity, power, and inclusion.
    Content
    Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.
  6. Adler, M.; Tennis, J.T.: Toward a taxonomy of harm in knowledge organization systems (2013) 0.00
    2.497293E-4 = product of:
      0.0049945856 = sum of:
        0.0049945856 = weight(_text_:in in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049945856 = score(doc=1068,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose to inventory the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. Theoretical underpinnings guide ontological commitment, as well as the recognition of the problem of harm in knowledge organization systems. The taxonomy of harm will be organized around three main questions: what happens?, who participates?, and who is affected and how? The aim is to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm.
  7. Tennis, J.T.: Two axes of domains for domain analysis (2003) 0.00
    2.35447E-4 = product of:
      0.00470894 = sum of:
        0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00470894 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    This paper adds two analytical devices to domain analysis, claiming that for domain analysis to work cumulatively transferable definitions of domains must be written. To establish this definition the author provides two axes to consider: Areas of Modulation and Degrees of Specialization. These axes may serve as analytical devices for the domain analyst to delineate what is being studied and what is not being studied in a domain analysis.
  8. Tennis, J.T.: Foundational, first-order, and second-order classification theory (2015) 0.00
    1.7658525E-4 = product of:
      0.003531705 = sum of:
        0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003531705 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
      0.05 = coord(1/20)
    
    Abstract
    Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer's metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can se categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.