Search (45 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.01
    0.01083742 = product of:
      0.02167484 = sum of:
        0.02167484 = product of:
          0.04334968 = sum of:
            0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04334968 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
  2. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
  3. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
  4. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  5. Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  6. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 2.2018 18:22:25
  7. Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012) 0.01
    0.0092911525 = product of:
      0.018582305 = sum of:
        0.018582305 = product of:
          0.03716461 = sum of:
            0.03716461 = weight(_text_:web in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03716461 = score(doc=1782,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21858418 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
  8. Beghtol, C.: General classification systems : structural principles for multidisciplinary specification (1998) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems
  9. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.
  10. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
  11. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.19-22
  12. Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  13. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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
  14. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    8. 4.2015 16:22:13
  15. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.01
    0.008823298 = product of:
      0.017646596 = sum of:
        0.017646596 = product of:
          0.03529319 = sum of:
            0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03529319 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
  16. Campbell, G.: ¬A queer eye for the faceted guy : how a universal classification principle can be applied to a distinct subculture (2004) 0.01
    0.008669936 = product of:
      0.017339872 = sum of:
        0.017339872 = product of:
          0.034679744 = sum of:
            0.034679744 = weight(_text_:web in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034679744 = score(doc=2639,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.
  17. Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.
  18. Keshet, Y.: Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge (2011) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=4493,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.
  19. Gnoli, C.: Metadata about what? : distinguishing between ontic, epistemic, and documental dimensions in knowledge organization (2012) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.
  20. Dimensions of knowledge : facets for knowledge organization (2017) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The identification and contextual definition of concepts is the core of knowledge organization. The full expression of comprehension is accomplished through the use of an extension device called the facet. A facet is a category of dimensional characteristics that cross the hierarchical array of concepts to provide extension, or breadth, to the contexts in which they are discovered or expressed in knowledge organization systems. The use of the facet in knowledge organization has a rich history arising in the mid-nineteenth century. As it has matured through more than a century of application, the notion of the facet in knowledge organization has taken on a variety of meanings, from that of simple categories used in web search engines to the more sophisticated idea of intersecting dimensions of knowledge. This book describes the state of the art of the understanding of facets in knowledge organization today.