Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.03 
    0.027848562 = product of:
  0.083545685 = sum of:
    0.083545685 = sum of:
      0.048750892 = weight(_text_:system in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048750892 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03479479 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.02 
    0.020980377 = product of:
  0.06294113 = sum of:
    0.06294113 = sum of:
      0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02814634 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03479479 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Citation analysis : a social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01 
    0.010745349 = product of:
  0.032236047 = sum of:
    0.032236047 = weight(_text_:management in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032236047 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.6, S.1313-1325
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01 
    0.010745349 = product of:
  0.032236047 = sum of:
    0.032236047 = weight(_text_:management in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032236047 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Lifeboat for knowledge organization 0.01 
    0.009287819 = product of:
  0.027863456 = sum of:
    0.027863456 = product of:
      0.055726912 = sum of:
        0.055726912 = weight(_text_:system in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055726912 = score(doc=2973,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In spring 2002 I started teaching Knowledge Organization (KO) at the new master education at The Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen (MS RSLIS). I began collecting information about KO as support for my own teaching and research. In the beginning I made the information available to the student through a password protected system "SiteScape". This site was a great success, but I encountered problems in transferring the system for new classes the following years. Therefore I have now decided to make it public on the www and to protect only information that should not be made public. References freely available in electronic form are given an URL (if known).
  6. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.008118784 = product of:
  0.02435635 = sum of:
    0.02435635 = product of:
      0.0487127 = sum of:
        0.0487127 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0487127 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.008118784 = product of:
  0.02435635 = sum of:
    0.02435635 = product of:
      0.0487127 = sum of:
        0.0487127 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0487127 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Pages
    S.22-36
  8. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.0069589573 = product of:
  0.020876871 = sum of:
    0.020876871 = product of:
      0.041753743 = sum of:
        0.041753743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041753743 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.01 
    0.0065001193 = product of:
  0.019500358 = sum of:
    0.019500358 = product of:
      0.039000716 = sum of:
        0.039000716 = weight(_text_:system in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039000716 = score(doc=2290,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.24108742 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.01 
    0.0057991315 = product of:
  0.017397394 = sum of:
    0.017397394 = product of:
      0.03479479 = sum of:
        0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03479479 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
  11. Hjoerland, B.: Arguments for 'the bibliographical paradigm' : some thoughts inspired by the new English edition of the UDC (2007) 0.01 
    0.0056292685 = product of:
  0.016887804 = sum of:
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. Method. The method is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. Analysis. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. Results. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.
  12. Hjoerland, B.; Scerri, E.; Dupré, J.: Forum: The Philosophy of Classification : The Periodic Table and the Philosophy of Classification - What is the Nature of the Periodic Table as a Classification System? - A Note on the Debate Between Hjørland and Scerri on the Significance of the Periodic Table (2011) 0.01 
    0.0056292685 = product of:
  0.016887804 = sum of:
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.01 
    0.0056292685 = product of:
  0.016887804 = sum of:
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science 0.01 
    0.0056292685 = product of:
  0.016887804 = sum of:
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organization : a case for boolean retrieval and human decision-making during searches (2015) 0.00 
    0.004691057 = product of:
  0.01407317 = sum of:
    0.01407317 = product of:
      0.02814634 = sum of:
        0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02814634 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant 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.
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.00 
    0.004691057 = product of:
  0.01407317 = sum of:
    0.01407317 = product of:
      0.02814634 = sum of:
        0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02814634 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.00 
    0.004691057 = product of:
  0.01407317 = sum of:
    0.01407317 = product of:
      0.02814634 = sum of:
        0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02814634 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
  18. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003) 0.00 
    0.0037528453 = product of:
  0.011258536 = sum of:
    0.011258536 = product of:
      0.022517072 = sum of:
        0.022517072 = weight(_text_:system in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022517072 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.
  19. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.00 
    0.0028995657 = product of:
  0.008698697 = sum of:
    0.008698697 = product of:
      0.017397394 = sum of:
        0.017397394 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017397394 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
  20. Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Introduction to a Special Issue of Knowledge Organization (2003) 0.00 
    0.0023455285 = product of:
  0.007036585 = sum of:
    0.007036585 = product of:
      0.01407317 = sum of:
        0.01407317 = weight(_text_:system in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01407317 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.

Authors

Years

Types

Themes