Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.060336545 = product of:
  0.24134618 = sum of:
    0.24134618 = weight(_text_:hartmann in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24134618 = score(doc=4533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45715547 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.963798 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0574042 = queryNorm
        0.5279302 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.963798 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

0.040224362 = product of:
  0.16089745 = sum of:
    0.16089745 = weight(_text_:hartmann in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16089745 = score(doc=624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45715547 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.963798 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0574042 = queryNorm
        0.35195348 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.963798 = idf(docFreq=41, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The current debate between two theoretical approaches in library and information science and knowledge organization (KO), the cognitive one and the sociological one, is addressed in view of their possible integration in a more general model. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Personal knowledge of individual users, as focused in the cognitive approach, and social production and use of knowledge, as focused in the sociological approach, are reconnected to the theory of levels of reality, particularly in the versions of Nicolai Hartmann and Karl R. Popper (three worlds). The notions of artefact and mentefact, as proposed in anthropological literature and applied in some KO systems, are also examined as further contributions to the generalized framework. Some criticisms to these models are reviewed and discussed. Findings Both the cognitive approach and the sociological approach, if taken in isolation, prove to be cases of philosophical monism as they emphasize a single level over the others. On the other hand, each of them can be considered as a component of a pluralist ontology and epistemology, where individual minds and social communities are but two successive levels in knowledge production and use, and are followed by a further level of "objectivated spirit"; this can in turn be analyzed into artefacts and mentefacts. While all these levels are relevant to information science, mentefacts and their properties are its most peculiar objects of study, which make it distinct from such other disciplines as psychology and sociology. Originality/value This analysis shows how existing approaches can benefit from additional notions contributed by levels theory, to develop more complete and accurate models of information and knowledge phenomena.