Relationships in knowledge organization

Knowledge Organization

Volumn 35, Issue 2-3, 2008, Pages 150-159

  Green, Rebecca ^a,b  

^a OCLC Online Library Computer Center Inc   (United States)

^b Editorial Board of Knowledge Organization

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49749107816     PISSN: 09437444     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-150     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ali, S. Nazim. 1993. Subject relationship between articles determined by co-occurrence of keywords in citing and cited titles. Journal of information science 19: 225-32.
2. Barry, Carol L. 1994. User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45: 149-59.
3. Bean, Carol A. 1996. Analysis of non-hierarchical associative relationships among Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): Anatomical and related terminology. In Green, Rebecca, ed., Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth international ISKO Conference 15-18 July 1996 Washington, DC. Würzburg: Ergon, 80-86.
4. Bean, Carol A. and Green, Rebecca. 2001. Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Beghtol, Clare. 2001. Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning. In Bean, Carol A. and Green, Rebecca, eds., Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 99-113.
6. Chan, Lois Mai and Joan S. Mitchell. 2003. Dewey Decimal Classification: principles and application. Dublin, Oh.: OCLC.
7. Crombie, Winifred. 1985. Process and relation in discourse and language learning. London: Oxford University Press.
8. Davies, Roy. 1989. The creation of new knowledge by information retrieval and classification. Journal of documentation 45: 273-301.
9. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set: An American National Standard. 2001. National Information Standards Organization (NISO). Available at http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/pdf/free/335284/Z39.85-2001.pdf.
10. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon W and Harms, Robert T., eds., Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1-88.
11. Gnoli, Claudio, Bosch, Mela, and Mazzocchi, Fulvio. 2007. A new relation for multidisciplinary knowledge organization systems: dependence. In Rodriguez Bravo, Blanca and Alvite Díez, M.a Luisa, eds., La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conoscimiento científico = Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge: actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España: León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007. León: Universidad de León Secretariado de Publicaciones, 399-409.
12. Green, Rebecca. 1995. Topical relevance relationships: why topic matching fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46: 646-53.
13. Green, Rebecca and Bean, Carol A. 1995. Topical relevance relationships: an exploratory study and preliminary typology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46: 654-62.
14. Green, Rebecca, Bean, Carol A., and Myaeng, Sung Hyon. 2002. The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
16. Halpern, David and Nilan, Michael. 1988. A step toward shifting the research emphasis in information science from the system to the user: an empirical investigation of source-evaluation behavior information seeking and use. In Borgman, Christine L. and Pai, Edward Y. H., eds., ASIS '88 proceedings of the 51st ASIS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., October 23-27, 1988. Medford, N.J.: Published for the American Society for Information Science by Learned Information, Inc., 169-76.
17. Harter, Stephen. P 1992. Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43: 602-15.
18. Harter, Stephen. P., Nisonger, Thomas E,. and Weng, Aiwei. 1993. Semantic relationships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 44: 543-52.
19. IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR). 2007. Functional requirements authority data: A conceptual model. Draft 2007-04-01. Available at http://www.ifla.org/VII/d4/FRANAR- ConceptualModel-2ndReview.pdf.
20. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. 1998. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report. München: K.G. Saur. Available at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/ frbr/frbr.pdf.
21. Lancaster, F. Wilfrid and Warner, Amy J. 1993. Information retrieval today. Arlington, Va.: Information Resources Press.
22. Library of Congress. 2000. MARC 21 concise format for bibliographic data. [Washington, D.O]: Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office. Available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
23. Library of Congress. Network Development and MARC Standards Office. 2004.
24. FRBR display tool. Version 2. Available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc- functional-analysis/tool.html.
25. Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Nilan, Michael S., Peek, Robin. P., and Snyder, Herbert W 1988. A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors: an exploration of users' strategy, source and information evaluating. In Borgman, Christine L. and Pai, Edward Y. H., eds., ASIS '88 proceedings of the 51st ASIS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., October 23-27, 1988. Medford, N.J.: Published for the American Society for Information Science by Learned Information, Inc., 152-59.
27. Oliver, Chris. 2007. Changing to RDA. Feliciter 53:250-253. Available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/felicitervol53no7p250- 253.pdf.
28. Saracevic, Tefko. 1976. Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Advances in librarianship 6: 79-138.
29. Schamber, Linda. 1991. Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations. Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University.
30. Swanson, Don R. 1986. Undiscovered public knowledge. Library quarterly 56: 103-18.
31. Swanson, Don R. 1990. The absence of co-citation as a clue to undiscovered causal connections. In Borgman, C. L.. ed., Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 129-137.
32. Swanson, Don R. 1991. Complementary structures in disjoint scientific literatures. In SIGIR '91, proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development. New York: ACM, 280-9.
33. Swanson, Don R. 1993. Intervening in the life cycles of scientific knowledge. Library trends 41, no.4: 606-31.
34. th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation, Aalborg, Denmark, September 1-3, 2004, 68-75. Available at http://www2.db.dk/NIOD/thellefsen.pdf.
35. Tillett, Barbara B. 2001. Bibliographic relationships. In Bean, Carol A. and Green, Rebecca, eds., Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 19-35.
36. Trivison, Donna. 1987. Term co-occurrence in cited/citing journal articles as a measure of document similarity. Information processing & management 23:183-94.
37. Vizine-Goetz, Diane. 2007. FictionFinder: imagining what a "next generation" catalog might look like." Presentation given at the OCLC Members Council Research and New Technologies Interest Group meeting, 6 February 2007, Québec, QC (Canada) and Dublin, Ohio (USA). Available at http://www.oclc.org/research/memberscouncil/2007-02/vizine-goetz.pdf [The FictionFinder prototype itself is available at: http://fictionfinder.oclc.org/].