Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.056322455 = product of:
  0.08448368 = sum of:
    0.06730273 = weight(_text_:based in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06730273 = score(doc=629,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.44037464 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.035486113 = product of:
  0.053229168 = sum of:
    0.028779859 = weight(_text_:based in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028779859 = score(doc=2290,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.024449307 = product of:
      0.048898615 = sum of:
        0.048898615 = weight(_text_:training in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048898615 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.20640713 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.028412666 = product of:
  0.042618997 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.017180953 = product of:
      0.034361906 = sum of:
        0.034361906 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034361906 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

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

0.023742175 = product of:
  0.07122652 = sum of:
    0.07122652 = weight(_text_:based in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122652 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.46604872 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.020770075 = product of:
  0.062310223 = sum of:
    0.062310223 = weight(_text_:based in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062310223 = score(doc=4476,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.4077077 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

0.020350434 = product of:
  0.0610513 = sum of:
    0.0610513 = weight(_text_:based in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0610513 = score(doc=3169,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.39947033 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A distinction can be made between "artificial classifications" and "natural classifications," where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or "descriptive") classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful "atheoretical" classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.

0.018960398 = product of:
  0.056881193 = sum of:
    0.056881193 = weight(_text_:based in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881193 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.37218451 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.017623993 = product of:
  0.052871976 = sum of:
    0.052871976 = weight(_text_:based in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052871976 = score(doc=2131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.

0.014686662 = product of:
  0.044059984 = sum of:
    0.044059984 = weight(_text_:based in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044059984 = score(doc=388,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine challenges facing bibliographic classification at both the practical and theoretical levels. At the practical level, libraries are increasingly dispensing with classifying books. At the theoretical level, many researchers, managers, and users believe that the activity of "classification" is not worth the effort, as search engines can be improved without the heavy cost of providing metadata. Design/methodology/approach - The basic issue in classification is seen as providing criteria for deciding whether A should be classified as X. Such decisions are considered to be dependent on the purpose and values inherent in the specific classification process. These decisions are not independent of theories and values in the document being classified, but are dependent on an interpretation of the discourses within those documents. Findings - At the practical level, there is a need to provide high-quality control mechanisms. At the theoretical level, there is a need to establish the basis of each decision, and to change the philosophy of classification from being based on "standardisation" to being based on classifications tailored to different domains and purposes. Evidence-based practice provides an example of the importance of classifying documents according to research methods. Originality/value - Solving both the practical (organisational) and the theoretical problems facing classification is necessary if the field is to survive both as a practice and as an academic subject within library and information science. This article presents strategies designed to tackle these challenges.

0.014686662 = product of:
  0.044059984 = sum of:
    0.044059984 = weight(_text_:based in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044059984 = score(doc=2710,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

0.014686662 = product of:
  0.044059984 = sum of:
    0.044059984 = weight(_text_:based in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044059984 = score(doc=594,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.

0.014686662 = product of:
  0.044059984 = sum of:
    0.044059984 = weight(_text_:based in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044059984 = score(doc=1193,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

0.01438993 = product of:
  0.04316979 = sum of:
    0.04316979 = weight(_text_:based in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04316979 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

0.01438993 = product of:
  0.04316979 = sum of:
    0.04316979 = weight(_text_:based in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04316979 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

0.014206333 = product of:
  0.021309499 = sum of:
    0.012719021 = weight(_text_:based in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012719021 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.083222985 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.008590477 = product of:
      0.017180953 = sum of:
        0.017180953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017180953 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=1892,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=4774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study on information science (IS) by Bates (2007) is an important contribution to the literature on browsing in IS. It is explicitly based on "behavioural science." I use this article as the point of departure for demonstrating how more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in information seeking, browsing, and related phenomena. It is part of my ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be accompanied by analyses of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is mainly formulated as a discussion based on a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as support for the emerging social paradigm in this field. The article argues that human browsing should not be conceptualized primarily in biological terms and should not be understood as random exploratory processes, but rather it should be seen as a kind of orienting strategy governed by people's metatheories or "paradigms." Information professionals should know how different metatheories are distributed in the information ecology and, thus, be able to help people developing fruitful browsing strategies.

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=1124,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.

0.011871087 = product of:
  0.03561326 = sum of:
    0.03561326 = weight(_text_:based in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03561326 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation