Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021808002 = product of:
  0.054520003 = sum of:
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.012729597 = product of:
  0.031823993 = sum of:
    0.020174196 = weight(_text_:context in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020174196 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.11448086 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
    0.011649796 = weight(_text_:system in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011649796 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.
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.

0.00998989 = product of:
  0.024974726 = sum of:
    0.020174196 = weight(_text_:context in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020174196 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.11448086 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.004800531 = product of:
      0.014401593 = sum of:
        0.014401593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014401593 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven

0.0068473495 = product of:
  0.034236748 = sum of:
    0.034236748 = weight(_text_:context in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034236748 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.19428048 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.0064569726 = product of:
  0.032284863 = sum of:
    0.032284863 = weight(_text_:system in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284863 = score(doc=2290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0027127003 = product of:
  0.013563501 = sum of:
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

0.0026882975 = product of:
  0.013441487 = sum of:
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22