Basic-level Concepts and the Assessment of Subject Relevance: Are They Really Relevant?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v5i1.15181Abstract
Studies of user-generated tagging vocabularies have suggested a preference for basic- level terms in tagging vocabularies (e.g., Golder and Huberman, 2006; Munk and Mork, 2007). A high proportion of basic-level terms has also been observed in systems of knowledge organization (Green, 2006). This study addresses the relevance of basic-level terms in knowledge representation and organization systems from the perspective of theories of relevance assessment proposed by Saracevic (1975, 2007a, 2007b) and Hjørland (2010) and argues that domain knowledge and expertise, which are thought to be central in the assessment of relevance, may be based on the subordinate level of conceptualization rather than the basic or superordinate levels seemingly favored in representational systems.Downloads
Issue
Section
Papers
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).