Number of found records: 61
|
FLYNN, Kathleen M. |
|
The Knowledge Manager as a Digital Librarian: An Overview of the Knowledge Management Pilot Program at the MITRE Corporation
|
|
The Second Annual Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, June 11-13, 1995 - Austin, Texas, USA. |
|
On line ( 13/06/2004) |
|
The Knowledge Management Program was instituted at The MITRE Corporation in October of 1994. At the midpoint of this year-long program, the responsibilities of the knowledge manager have become clearly defined and the similarity of these responsibilities to the traditional roles of the librarian suggest that this program offers a model for role of the librarian in the transition to a digital library environment. (AU) |
|
models; knowledge management; communications tools |
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
HICKS, David; TOCHTERMANN, Klaus |
|
Personal Digital Libraries and knowledge management
|
|
Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2001, vol.7, n.7 |
|
PDF |
|
The efficient management of knowledge has become imperative for almost all types of organizations. Many approaches exist for dealing with knowledge management at a corporate level. But there is also a need to support knowledge management also at an individual level, a level which takes the specific needs, experiences and skills of knowledge workers into account. While largely unexplored within the field of knowledge management, in the field of digital libraries advanced personalization and customization concepts exist. Within this context, this paper examines these concepts and how they can be exploited to address the challenges which are typical for knowledge management. As the paper will show, many synergies exist, if knowledge management at an individual level is dealt with in combination with personal digital libraries. |
|
personalization; information systems; knowledge management; digital library |
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
HILDRETH, Paul M.; KIMBLE, Chris |
|
The duality of knowledge
|
|
Information Research, 2002, vol.8, n.1, paper no. 142. |
|
On line ( 15/06/2004) |
|
Knowledge Management (KM) is a field that has attracted much attention both in academic and practitioner circles. Most KM projects appear to be primarily concerned with knowledge that can be quantified and can be captured, codified and stored - an approach more deserving of the label Information Management.
Recently there has been recognition that some knowledge cannot be quantified and cannot be captured, codified or stored. However, the predominant approach to the management of this knowledge remains to try to convert it to a form that can be handled using the 'traditional' approach. In this paper, we argue that this approach is flawed and some knowledge simply cannot be captured. A method is needed which recognises that knowledge resides in people: not in machines or documents. We will argue that KM is essentially about people and the earlier technology driven approaches, which failed to consider this, were bound to be limited in their success. One possible way forward is offered by Communities of Practice, which provide an environment for people to develop knowledge through interaction with others in an environment where knowledge is created nurtured and sustained. (AU)
|
|
knowledge management; information management |
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
HJORLAND, Birger |
|
Fundamentals of knowledge organization
|
|
Knowledge organization, 2003, vol. 30, n. 2, pp. 87-111. |
|
PDF |
|
This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, much broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very much the special LIS focus on KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic aim of research in KO is to develop knowledge on how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion. (AU) |
|
Classification; Subject indexing; Knowledge |
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
