60 resultados para lawn tennis
em University of Washington
Resumo:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2005.
Resumo:
Presents constructs from classification theory and relates them to the study of hashtags and other forms of tags in social media data. Argues these constructs are useful to the study of the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality. Closes with an introduction to an historical case study from Amazon.com.
Resumo:
Three paths of interdisciplinary work shape the future of classification research.emergence, encyclopedism, and ecology. Each of these, in method, approach, and in substantive inquiry outline both the boundaries and the intersections of the many fields that contribute to our overall understanding of classification research. This paper outlines some high level claims of this work, ties it to current research and offers some theoretical applications of these paths.
Resumo:
A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose to inventory the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. Theoretical underpinnings guide ontological commitment, as well as the recognition of the problem of harm in knowledge organization systems. The taxonomy of harm will be organized around three main questions: what hap- pens?, who participates?, and who is affected and how? The aim is to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm.
Resumo:
This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.
Resumo:
This paper adds two analytical devices to domain analysis, claiming that for domain analysis to work cumulatively transferable definitions of domains must be written. To establish this definition the author provides two axes to consider: Ar- eas of Modulation and Degrees of Specialization. These axes may serve as analytical devices for the domain analyst to delineate what is being studied and what is not being studied in a domain analysis.
URIs and Intertextuality: Incumbent Philosophical Commitments in the Development of the Semantic Web
Resumo:
Examines two commitments inherent in Resource Description Framework (RDF): intertextuality and rationalism. After introducing how rationalism has been studied in knowledge organization, this paper then introduces the concept of bracketed-rationalism. This paper closes with a discussion of ramifications of intertextuality and bracketed rationalism on evaluation of RDF.
Resumo:
Things change. Words change, meaning changes and use changes both words and meaning. In information access systems this means concept schemes such as thesauri or clas- sification schemes change. They always have. Concept schemes that have survived have evolved over time, moving from one version, often called an edition, to the next. If we want to manage how words and meanings - and as a conse- quence use - change in an effective manner, and if we want to be able to search across versions of concept schemes, we have to track these changes. This paper explores how we might expand SKOS, a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) draft recommendation in order to do that kind of tracking.The Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Core Guide is sponsored by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group. The second draft, edited by Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley, was issued in November 2005. SKOS is a “model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, other types of controlled vocabulary and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies” in RDF. How SKOS handles version in concept schemes is an open issue. The current draft guide suggests using OWL and DCTERMS as mechanisms for concept scheme revision.As it stands an editor of a concept scheme can make notes or declare in OWL that more than one version exists. This paper adds to the SKOS Core by introducing a tracking sys- tem for changes in concept schemes. We call this tracking system vocabulary ontogeny. Ontogeny is a biological term for the development of an organism during its lifetime. Here we use the ontogeny metaphor to describe how vocabularies change over their lifetime. Our purpose here is to create a conceptual mechanism that will track these changes and in so doing enhance information retrieval and prevent document loss through versioning, thereby enabling persistent retrieval.
Resumo:
This article presents an inventory what theorists describe as the definition of domain analysis. Survey writings on and of domain analyses for their distinct attributes and arguments. Compile these components and attributes, linking them to their function, and from there. Describe a proposed ideal form of domain analysis. Evidence that while the debate about the substance and form of the epistemic and ontological character of domain analysis will continue, some might find it useful to give shape to their ideas using a particular form that follows function. If our purpose is to delineate and communicate what it is that we are analyzing when we engage in domain analysis, then I hope this small contribution can be of use.
Resumo:
Every indexing language is made up of terms. Those terms have morphological characteristics. These include terms made up of single words, two words, or more. We can also take into account the total number of terms.We can assemble these measures, normalize them, and then cluster indexing languages based on this common set of measures [1].Cluster analysis reviews discrete groups based on term morphology that comport with traditional design assumptions that separate ontologies, from thesauri, and folksonomies.
Resumo:
The InterPARES 2 Terminology Cross-Domain has created three terminological instruments in service to the project, and by extension, Archival Science. Over the course of the five-year project this Cross-Domain has collected words, definition, and phrases from extant documents, research tools, models, and direct researcher submission and discussion. From these raw materials, the Cross-Domain has identified a systematic and pragmatic way establishing a coherent view on the concepts involved in dynamic, experiential, and interactive records and systems in the arts, sciences, and e-government.The three terminological instruments are the Glossary, Dictionary, and Ontologies. The first of these is an authoritative list of terms and definitions that are core to our understanding of the evolving records creation, keeping, and preservation environments. The Dictionary is a tool used to facilitate interdisciplinary communication. It contains multiple definitions for terms, from multiple disciplines. By using this tool, researchers can see how Archival Science deploys terminology compared to Computer Science, Library and Information Science, or Arts, etc. The third terminological instrument, the Ontologies, identify explicit relationships between concepts of records. This is useful for communicating the nuances of Diplomatics in the dynamic, experiential, and interactive environment.All three of these instruments were drawn from a Register of terms gathered over the course of the project. This Register served as a holding place for terms, definitions, and phrases, and allowed researchers to discuss, comment on, and modify submissions. The Register and the terminological instruments were housed in the Terminology Database. The Database provides searching, display, and file downloads – making it easy to navigate through the terminological instruments.Terminology used in InterPARES 1 and the UBC Project was carried forward to this Database. In this sense, we are building on our past knowledge, and making it relevant to the contemporary environment.
Resumo:
This paper argues that in order to systematically comprehend the diversity of information organization frameworks, we must look at how aesthetic concerns and economic concerns manifest in decisions made about designing and deploying work practices, structures, and discourse. In order to do this I construct an analytical rubric borne by a definition of aesthetic and economics pertinent to indexing regimes. I take the position that we need to move into a more descriptive stance on practices of knowledge organization, not only in documentary heritage institutions (libraries, archives, and museums), but also into the cultural and artistic realms. By expanding the scope of inquiry we can interrogate the integrity of my assertion above, namely, that a chief concern in systematically understanding information organization frameworks, lies in understanding how such frameworks wrestle with, and manifest along a spectrum drawn from economic to aesthetic decision-making.
Resumo:
The U.S. National Science Foundation metadata registry under development for the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) is a repertory intended to manage both metadata schemes and schemas. The focus of this draft discussion paper is on the scheme side of the development work. In particular, the concern of the discussion paper is with issues around the creation of historical snapshots of concept changes and their encoding in SKOS. Through framing the problem as we see it, we hope to find an optimal solution to our need for a SKOS encoding of these snapshots. Since what we are seeking to model is concept change, it is necessary at the outset to make it clear that we are not talking about changes to a concept of such a nature that would require the declaration a new concept with its own URI.In the project, we avoid the use of the terms “version” and “versioning” with regard to changes in concepts and reserve their use to the significant changes of schemes as a whole. Significant changes triggering a new scheme version might include changes in scheme documentation that express a significant shift in the purpose, use or architecture of the scheme. We use the term “snapshot” to denote the state of a scheme at identifiable points in time. Thus, snapshots are identifiable views of a scheme that record the incremental changes that have occurred to concepts, relationships among concepts, and scheme documentation since the last snapshot. Aspects of concept change occur that we need to capture and make available both through the registry and through potentially in transmission of a scheme to other registries. We call these capturings “concept instances.”
Resumo:
Classification schemes are built at a particular point in time; at inception, they reflect a worldview indicative of that time. This is their strength, but results in potential weak- nesses as worldviews change. For example, if a scheme of mathematics is not updated even though the state of the art has changed, then it is not a very useful scheme to users for the purposes of information retrieval. However, change in schemes is a good thing. Changing allows designers of schemes to update their model and serves as a responsible mediator between resources and users. But change does come at a cost. In the print world, we revise universal clas- sification schemes—sometimes in drastic ways—and this means that over time, the power of a classification scheme to collocate is compromised if we do not account for scheme change in the organization of affected physical resources. If we understand this phenomenon in the print world, we can design ameliorations for the digital world.
Resumo:
Knowledge organization (KO) research is a field of scholarship concerned with the design, study and critique of the processes of organizing and representing documents that societies see as worthy of preserving (Tennis, 2008). In this context we are concerned with the relationship between language and action.On the one hand, we are concerned with what language can and does do for our knowledge organization systems (KOS). For example, how do the words NEGRO or INDIAN work in historical and contemporary indexing languages? In relation to this, we are also concerned with how we know about knowledge organization (KO) and its languages. On the other hand, we are concerned with how to act given this knowledge. That is, how do we carry out research and how do we design, implement, and evaluate KO systems?It is important to consider these questions in the context of our work because we are delegated by society to disseminate cultural memory. We are endowed with a perspective, prepared by an education, and granted positions whereby society asks us to ensure that documentary material is accessible to future generations. There is a social value in our work, and as such there is a social imperative to our work. We must act with good conscience, and use language judiciously, for the memory of the world is a heavy burden.In this paper, I explore these two weights of language and action that bear down on KO researchers. I first summarize what extant literature says about the knowledge claims we make with regard to KO practices and systems. To make it clear what it is that I think we know, I create a schematic that will link claims (language) to actions in advising, implementing, or evaluating information practices and systems.I will then contrast this with what we do not know, that is, what the unanswered questions might be (Gnoli, 2008 ; Dahlberg, 2011), and I will discuss them in relation to the two weights in our field of KO.Further, I will try to provide a systematic overview of possible ways to address these open questions in KO research. I will draw on the concept of elenchus - the forms of epistemology, theory, and methodology in KO (Tennis, 2008), and framework analysis which are structures, work practice, and discourses of KO systems (Tennis, 2006). In so doing, I will argue for a Neopragmatic stance on the weight of language and action in KO (Rorty, 1982 ; 2000). I will close by addressing the lacuna left in Neopragmatic thought – the ethical imperative to use language and action in a particular good and moral way. That is, I will address the ethical imperative of KO given its weights, epistemologies, theories, and methods. To do this, I will review a sample of relevant work on deontology in both western and eastern philosophical schools (e.g., Harvey, 1995).The perspective I want to communicate in this section is that the good in carrying out KO research may begin with epistemic stances (cf., language), but ultimately stands on ethical actions. I will present an analysis describing the micro and the macro ethical concerns in relation to KO research and its advice on practice. I hope this demonstrates that the direction of epistemology, theory, and methodology in KO, while burdened with the dual weights of language and action, is clear when provided an ethical sounding board. We know how to proceed when we understand how our work can benefit the world.KO is an important, if not always understood, division of labor in a society that values its documentary heritage and memory institutions. Being able to do good requires us to understand how to balance the weights of language and action. We must understand where we stand and be able to chart a path forward, one that does not cause harm, but adds value to the world and those that want to access recorded knowledge.