Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.025295582 = product of:
  0.09485842 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.011341906 = weight(_text_:in in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341906 = score(doc=1119,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

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.

Date

23. 6.2002 11:32:53

0.024123197 = product of:
  0.090461984 = sum of:
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
    0.02783884 = weight(_text_:23 in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02783884 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23759183 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
    0.00694547 = weight(_text_:in in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00694547 = score(doc=3513,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Abstract

Discoveries in high energy physics have led to new understanding about the nature of that which exists. We use the metaphor of the particle collider to accumulate components of a theory of knowledge that underlies the science of knowledge organization. We outline the concepts of a knowledge universe, the central role of concepts, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations and documents. This thought experiment provides a different epistemological reading of "knowledge" by demonstrating a semantics that is based on structure and on related forces between components, rather than on content, so as to enable the development of mechanisms for linking related knowledge entities with so-far undiscovered similarities.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.020741977 = product of:
  0.07778241 = sum of:
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.023199033 = weight(_text_:23 in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023199033 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.008185315 = weight(_text_:in in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008185315 = score(doc=5678,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 5678, 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=5678)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Authority control: definition and international experience. Part I"

0.016733494 = product of:
  0.0627506 = sum of:
    0.018559227 = weight(_text_:23 in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018559227 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15839456 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.018559227 = weight(_text_:23 in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018559227 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15839456 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.018559227 = weight(_text_:23 in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018559227 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15839456 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.007072921 = weight(_text_:in in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007072921 = score(doc=134,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Abstract

Works and items form documentary entities-packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. As such, works demonstrate the characteristics of signs and symbols. Further, works may have membership in a canon. A taxonomic definition of the work is presented, which encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities. Works and items are joined variously to form documentary entities--packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. A work may have many texts, and may appear in many documents and even in many documentary forms. Marco and Navarro (1993) have suggested that epistemological analysis of the paradigms of knowledge are essential for the design and implementation of cognitive strategies to guide documentary analysis. Such is the case with the understanding of the work component of the documentary entity. Marco and Navarro also assert the usefulness of taxonomy as a key element of the epistemological analysis of paradigms. Works have been variously defined in the literature of information science, knowledge organization, linguistics, musicology, and literary criticism, among others. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. In this paper a taxonomic definition of the work is presented. This definition encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities

Date

1. 1.2002 19:58:23

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7

Source

Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

0.015152273 = product of:
  0.05682102 = sum of:
    0.016239323 = weight(_text_:23 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016239323 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.13859524 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
    0.016239323 = weight(_text_:23 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016239323 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.13859524 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
    0.016239323 = weight(_text_:23 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016239323 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.13859524 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
    0.008103048 = weight(_text_:in in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008103048 = score(doc=4555,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Abstract

As we all know, Knowledge Organization (KO) is a pretty broad domain. Although the concept-theoretic approach to classification is at the core along with several other important pieces of what we call classification theory, both the intension and the extension of the domain are represented by broad trajectories. Arguably, the biennial conferences represent way stations within the matrix of the domain-points in time when we pause to take stock of our current research. Also, because each conference is hosted and planned by a regional chapter, each then reflects peculiar parameters of the intersections of intensional and extensional trajectories. Perhaps because the domain of knowledge itself is so immense, so also is our corporate attempt to grapple with the theoretical and applied aspects of its organization. Furthermore, because of the breadth of our domain, many possibilities exist for its representation, depending on the constitution of the research front (or fronts) at any moment in time. That is, research in the domain stretches in all directions from its solid theoretical core down many much more granular roadways. Thus by analyzing the activity and contents of these metaphorical way stations-that is, by bring the tools of domain analysis to bear on our own biennial conferences-we are able to visualize the moment in time represented by the accumulated scholarship generated by each conference. 2010's 11th International ISKO Conference in Rome offered the latest opportunity for analysis on a broad scale.
To take advantage of the wonderful Italian weather, ISKO's 2010 conference was moved from the usual August to February; the venue was the Sapienza University (officially Sapienza - Università di Roma) and the conference took place 23-26 February 2010. The conference was organized and hosted by ISKO Italy and the Faculty of Philosophy of Sapienza University. Each morning as attendees arrived, we were treated to the garden pictured in Figure 1, and especially interesting was the fountain and the statue of St. Francis. Of course, the mystery was the turtle at St. Francis' foot, which looks quite like part of the statue but turned out to be real. The peaceful gardens were just a hallmark of the contemplative nature of the conference. Officially the 11th International ISKO Conference, the theme was "Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization." The proceedings and the conference program together listed 65 presentations, of which 64 were actually presented and 61 had papers included in the proceedings (or, 4 papers were presented but not included in the proceedings, and 1 paper included in the proceedings was not presented). Although space is insufficient for a full analysis, following from my editorial following ISKO 10 (Smiraglia 2008), I will use this space to paint a brief bibliometric portrait of the domain at the core of this conference. Data for this analysis come from the PDF of the proceedings; all citations for all papers were pasted in an Excel spreadsheet, where the citations were variously delimited for the following analyses. The original file is available on my blog: http://lazykoblog.wordpress.com/.

0.011221729 = product of:
  0.042081483 = sum of:
    0.0115995165 = weight(_text_:23 in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0115995165 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.0989966 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.0115995165 = weight(_text_:23 in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0115995165 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.0989966 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.0115995165 = weight(_text_:23 in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0115995165 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.117170855 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.0989966 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.007282937 = weight(_text_:in in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007282937 = score(doc=409,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.16377288 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Content

"Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.
An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
Librarianship incorporates the tools of knowledge organization as part of its role as cultural disseminator. Subject headings and classification were both intended by their 19`h century promulgators - perhaps most notably Dewey and Cutter - to facilitate learning by grouping materials of high quality together. We might call this enhanced serendipity if we think it happens by accident or act of fate, or we might call it curatorship if we realize the responsibility inherent in our social role. The cataloger's job always has been to place each work sensitively among other works related to it, and to make the relationships explicit to facilitate and even encourage selection (see Miksa 1983). Schallier (2004) reported on the use of classification in an online catalog to enhance just such a curatorial purpose. UDC classification codes were exploded into linguistic strings to allow users to search, not just for a given term, but for the terms that occur around it - that is, terms that are adjacent in the classification. These displays are used alongside LCSH to provide enhanced-serendipity for users. What caught my attention was the intention of the project (p. 271): UDC permits librarians to build virtual library shelves, where a document's subjects can be described in thematic categories rather than in detailed verbal terms. And: It is our experience that most end users are not familiar with large controlled vocabularies. UDC could be an answer to this, since its alphanumeric makeup could be used to build a tree structure of terms, which would guide end users in their searchers. There are other implications from this project, including background linkage from UDC codes that drive the "virtual shelves" to subject terms that drive the initial classification. Knowledge organization has consequences in both theory and application."

Date

23. 6.2007 20:59:06

0.005282474 = product of:
  0.026412372 = sum of:
    0.008019937 = weight(_text_:in in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008019937 = score(doc=770,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.012486642 = weight(_text_:der in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012486642 = score(doc=770,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17098716 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.005905792 = product of:
      0.017717376 = sum of:
        0.017717376 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017717376 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

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.

0.0032100645 = product of:
  0.024075482 = sum of:
    0.011459442 = weight(_text_:in in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011459442 = score(doc=825,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.01261604 = weight(_text_:der in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01261604 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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.

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

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

0.0024617396 = product of:
  0.018463045 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=5631,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
    0.009011458 = weight(_text_:der in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009011458 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Theme

Geschichte der Kataloge

0.0024617396 = product of:
  0.018463045 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=5652,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
    0.009011458 = weight(_text_:der in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009011458 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.073026784 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Theme

Geschichte der Kataloge

0.0023767005 = product of:
  0.017825253 = sum of:
    0.008966564 = weight(_text_:in in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008966564 = score(doc=1415,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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.

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

0.0023767005 = product of:
  0.017825253 = sum of:
    0.008966564 = weight(_text_:in in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008966564 = score(doc=1420,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.008858688 = product of:
      0.026576065 = sum of:
        0.026576065 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026576065 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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.

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

0.0022445105 = product of:
  0.016833827 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=636,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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

0.0022445105 = product of:
  0.016833827 = sum of:
    0.009451588 = weight(_text_:in in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009451588 = score(doc=1412,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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.

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

0.002075674 = product of:
  0.015567555 = sum of:
    0.008185315 = weight(_text_:in in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008185315 = score(doc=630,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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

0.001875403 = product of:
  0.014065522 = sum of:
    0.0066832816 = weight(_text_:in in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066832816 = score(doc=107,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00738224 = product of:
      0.02214672 = sum of:
        0.02214672 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02214672 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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

0.0014106786 = product of:
  0.010580089 = sum of:
    0.0068889693 = weight(_text_:in in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068889693 = score(doc=1919,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
    0.00369112 = product of:
      0.01107336 = sum of:
        0.01107336 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01107336 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.114482574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032692216 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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

8.3355175E-4 = product of:
  0.012503276 = sum of:
    0.012503276 = weight(_text_:in in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012503276 = score(doc=2099,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

7.388646E-4 = product of:
  0.011082969 = sum of:
    0.011082969 = weight(_text_:in in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011082969 = score(doc=3855,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.

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.

7.072921E-4 = product of:
  0.010609381 = sum of:
    0.010609381 = weight(_text_:in in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010609381 = score(doc=819,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.044469737 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032692216 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 819, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=819)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In KO there is work to solidify concept theory, which is at the core of our discipline; but there are other dimensions, as well as suggestions that classification must engage a multi-verse. This paper encompasses a domain analysis of KO as a means of visualizing the emergence and coherence of our domain, and as a way of denominating the parameters of the universe (or universes) in which our domain operates, as well as the dimensions of the operational paradigms at work. In other words, we look here at the extension and intension of KO as a domain. KO as a domain demonstrates coherence across time and across geopolitical boundaries, particularly as it concerns its theoretical foundations. Consistently marked dimensions within the domain: theoretical versus applied on one continuum, humanistic versus scientific on another. These dimensions serve to maintain constructive and dynamic tension within the domain, which in turn keeps the research front constantly in a state of renewal.

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