n the social sciences, forexample, the use of metaphors may thus limit thevalue of title searches). See further in Hjørland andKyllesbech Nielsen (2001)
An example would be helpful and appreciated.
9 Matching Annotations
- Last 7 days
-
article.imrpress.com article.imrpress.com
-
-
Ørom (2003) points out that the organizing principlesof museum exhibitions may reflect a worldview or ascholarly paradigm that is not only reflected in the or-ganization of objects in museums, but as well in the lit-erature and in the classification systems in libraries. Inother words, Ørom demonstrated a common theoreticalbasis of KOSs
for better or worse, probably a reflection of social and cultural priorities. An artifact of the present?
-
and encyclopedias (e.g. Foxand Wilkerson 1998; Duranti and Franks 2015).
potential follow ups for nerds.
-
t make use of the onto-axiomaticmethod, of graduated conceptualizations, of levels of real-ity, and of top-level-supported methods for ontology-development
I would like some dressing with this word salad. I have no idea what this means.
-
“objective
another big word...
-
n general: Criteria for organizingknowledge are to be found in the subject fields, their theo-ries and paradigms. It is therefore important with Dahlbergto consider KO as a science of science
So crietria for better or worse organization on this model comes from domain specific practices, producers, assumptions, theories. Sound like this is good for ease of use. Sounds potentially troublesome in that it might lend itself towards conservation of discipline specific categories which are sometimes the product of inherited prejudices, practices, not really reflective of best practices?
-
ecently a revolu-tion has taken place in ornithology, and it seems as if thenew classification of birds has a very strong scientific basisand a high degree of consensus (see Fjeldså 2013). To ex-amine the warrant for a classification is of course part ofthe domain-analytic framework. It is also important to real-ize that not every perspective or classification is as impor-tant as any other is. One should not subscribe to relativismdue to convenience, i.e. abstain from considering strengthsand weaknesses in different perspectives or paradigms
What criteria establish which forms of classification are better or worse? Is it a domain specific thing--most useful according to expert concensus of bird watchers, or are there more general criteria that can apply across "knowledge domains". In philosophy, we usually are conducting research in one of major subject areas; metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, or the history of all the above. This makes talking about what you do and finding relevant sources easyish, but it has also had a deep consequence on questions/research topics that seem philosophical but don't quite fit the traditional subject areas.
-
Different communities may be interested in the sameobject (e.g. a stone in the field [or a given book]) butmay interpret it differently (e.g. from an archeologicalor geological point of view). What is informative(and thus information) depends on the point of viewof the specific community.
This reminds me of the ways in which one's theoretical commitments, or interpretive school, in the practice of history, determines which pools of evidence and modes of explanation, will help you account for/ reconstruct your research object. You could be studying the same phenomenon, but use different units of information to understand it. Ie. written published texts, vs. statistics about population health, marriage, etc.
-
Knowledge
Just figuring out the technology here. I am old and a bit of a luddite.
Might as well take the occasion to say, as someone with a philosophical background, just learning the vocabulary of Information Science, I am finding the questions at the heart of Knowledge Organization evocative of some of the deepest questions in epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. Is there a mind independant world? How do we know it? What is Knowledge anyways? What role does our dependance on language have in how we know and understand the world? To what extent do our categories of knowledge construct the world? Do they reflect the world as it really is? I keep making associations to Ian Hacking's work, "The Social Construction of What?"
-