Domain analysis in information science
Identifieur interne : 001701 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001700; suivant : 001702Domain analysis in information science
Auteurs : Birger HjrlandSource :
- Journal of Documentation [ 0022-0418 ] ; 2002-08-01.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- American chemical society, American library association, American psychologist, American society, Andersen, Annual meeting, Annual review, Appropriate goal, Artificial intelligence, Asis, Aslib, Automatic identification, Background knowledge, Basic units, Behaviour, Benjamins translation library, Bibliography, Bibliometric, Bibliometric analysis, Bibliometric maps, Bibliometric studies, Bibliometrical, Bibliometrical studies, Biological classification, Book reviews, Broad categories, Buckland, Cambridge university press, Case study, Chemical elements, Chemical substances, Chemische literatur, Citation, Citation analysis, Citation indexes, Citation indexing, Citedness, Classification, Classification research, Classification research workshop, Classification researchers, Classification schemes, Classification systems, Clinical cognition, Clinical information systems, Cognition, Cognitive, Cognitive convictions, Cognitive sciences, Collaborative information retrieval, Common language, Composition studies, Computer science, Consumer goods, Critical studies, Current contents, Danmarks tekniske bibliotek, Database, Database semantics, Different approaches, Different communities, Different disciplines, Different domains, Different kinds, Different lsps, Digital libraries, Disciplinary communication, Discourse analysis, Discourse studies, Document, Document representation, Documentation, Domain, Domain analysis, Domain studies, Dynamic thesaural systems, Electronic retrieval, Empirical basis, Empirical data, Empirical questions, Empirical studies, Empirical user studies, Epistemological, Epistemological assumptions, Epistemological studies, Epistemology, Essential business reference sources, Expert systems, Garfield, General level, General librarianship, Genre, Genre analysis, Genre studies, German origin, Great number, Greenwood press, Gulbenkian commission, Haas, High degree, Historical development, Historical methods, Historical nature, Historical studies, Humanities, Implicit information, Important part, Important thing, Indexing, Indexing specialties, Individual documents, Influential authors, Information architecture, Information behaviour, Information guides, Information management, Information processing, Information processing management, Information resources, Information retrieval, Information science, Information scientist, Information services, Information sources, Information specialists, Information structures, Information studies, Information system, Information systems, Information today, Internal division, International handbook, International journal, Jdoc, Journal impact factors, Journal literature, Knowledge domains, Knowledge elicitation, Knowledge organisation, Knowledge organization, Kyllesbech nielsen, Language system, Last example, Legal language, Legal research guides, Librarianship, Library pathfinders, Linguistics, Literature guides, Long range, Lykke nielsen, Machine translation, Many years, Mental models, Methodology, Narr, National library, Natural language, Natural language processing, Natural sciences, Ordinary people, Organisation, Organise, Other approaches, Other documents, Other domains, Other fields, Other hand, Other kinds, Other researchers, Pathfinder, Political attitudes, Present paper, Primary literature, Primitive people, Professional cognition, Proper research, Proper theory, Psychological language, Psychological research, Public administration, Public sphere, Publication form, Reception studies, Reference books, Reference literature, Reference material, Relevance assessment, Relevance criteria, Research method, Researcher, Retrieval, Retrieving, Retrieving specialities, Royal school, Royal society, Science researchers, Scientific article, Scientific classification, Scientific communication, Scientific journals, Scientific language, Seglen, Semantic distance model, Semantic distances, Semantic domains, Semantic relations, Semantics, Several reasons, Several ways, Sheraton chicago hotel towers chicago, Social anthropology, Social construction, Social constructivism, Social sciences, Social system, Sociological perspectives, Sociological theory, Special classifications, Special languages, Special librarianship, Special purpose, Special purposes, Special reference, Special schemes, Speciality, Specific domain, Specific domains, Stanford university press, Strong approach, Subject bibliography, Subject domain, Subject domains, Subject gateways, Subject guides, Subject knowledge, Subject knowledge view, Subject specialists, Sublanguage, Sublanguage description, Such knowledge, Such maps, Such models, Such paradigms, Such research, Such work, Symbol systems, Systematic names, Systems perspective, Technical report, Terminological, Terminological studies, Terminology, Terminology research, Text retrieval, Theoretical views, Thesaurus, Thesaurus construction, Trivial names, Tubingen, Twentieth century, User, User behaviour, User studies, User support, Virtual library, Wisconsin press.
Abstract
What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domainspecific knowledge This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are producing literature guides and subject gateways producing special classifications and thesauri research on indexing and retrieving specialities empirical user studies bibliometrical studies historical studies document and genre studies epistemological and critical studies terminological studies, LSP languages for special purposes, discourse studies studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/00220410210431136
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Domain analysis in information science</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hjrland, Birger" sort="Hjrland, Birger" uniqKey="Hjrland B" first="Birger" last="Hjrland">Birger Hjrland</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/00220410210431136</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001701</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001701</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Domain analysis in information science</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hjrland, Birger" sort="Hjrland, Birger" uniqKey="Hjrland B" first="Birger" last="Hjrland">Birger Hjrland</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Documentation</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2002-08-01">2002-08-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">58</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="422">422</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="462">462</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>American chemical society</term><term>American library association</term><term>American psychologist</term><term>American society</term><term>Andersen</term><term>Annual meeting</term><term>Annual review</term><term>Appropriate goal</term><term>Artificial intelligence</term><term>Asis</term><term>Aslib</term><term>Automatic identification</term><term>Background knowledge</term><term>Basic units</term><term>Behaviour</term><term>Benjamins translation library</term><term>Bibliography</term><term>Bibliometric</term><term>Bibliometric analysis</term><term>Bibliometric maps</term><term>Bibliometric studies</term><term>Bibliometrical</term><term>Bibliometrical studies</term><term>Biological classification</term><term>Book reviews</term><term>Broad categories</term><term>Buckland</term><term>Cambridge university press</term><term>Case study</term><term>Chemical elements</term><term>Chemical substances</term><term>Chemische literatur</term><term>Citation</term><term>Citation analysis</term><term>Citation indexes</term><term>Citation indexing</term><term>Citedness</term><term>Classification</term><term>Classification research</term><term>Classification research workshop</term><term>Classification researchers</term><term>Classification schemes</term><term>Classification systems</term><term>Clinical cognition</term><term>Clinical information systems</term><term>Cognition</term><term>Cognitive</term><term>Cognitive convictions</term><term>Cognitive sciences</term><term>Collaborative information retrieval</term><term>Common language</term><term>Composition studies</term><term>Computer science</term><term>Consumer goods</term><term>Critical studies</term><term>Current contents</term><term>Danmarks tekniske bibliotek</term><term>Database</term><term>Database semantics</term><term>Different approaches</term><term>Different communities</term><term>Different disciplines</term><term>Different domains</term><term>Different kinds</term><term>Different lsps</term><term>Digital libraries</term><term>Disciplinary communication</term><term>Discourse analysis</term><term>Discourse studies</term><term>Document</term><term>Document representation</term><term>Documentation</term><term>Domain</term><term>Domain analysis</term><term>Domain studies</term><term>Dynamic thesaural systems</term><term>Electronic retrieval</term><term>Empirical basis</term><term>Empirical data</term><term>Empirical questions</term><term>Empirical studies</term><term>Empirical user studies</term><term>Epistemological</term><term>Epistemological assumptions</term><term>Epistemological studies</term><term>Epistemology</term><term>Essential business reference sources</term><term>Expert systems</term><term>Garfield</term><term>General level</term><term>General librarianship</term><term>Genre</term><term>Genre analysis</term><term>Genre studies</term><term>German origin</term><term>Great number</term><term>Greenwood press</term><term>Gulbenkian commission</term><term>Haas</term><term>High degree</term><term>Historical development</term><term>Historical methods</term><term>Historical nature</term><term>Historical studies</term><term>Humanities</term><term>Implicit information</term><term>Important part</term><term>Important thing</term><term>Indexing</term><term>Indexing specialties</term><term>Individual documents</term><term>Influential authors</term><term>Information architecture</term><term>Information behaviour</term><term>Information guides</term><term>Information management</term><term>Information processing</term><term>Information processing management</term><term>Information resources</term><term>Information retrieval</term><term>Information science</term><term>Information scientist</term><term>Information services</term><term>Information sources</term><term>Information specialists</term><term>Information structures</term><term>Information studies</term><term>Information system</term><term>Information systems</term><term>Information today</term><term>Internal division</term><term>International handbook</term><term>International journal</term><term>Jdoc</term><term>Journal impact factors</term><term>Journal literature</term><term>Knowledge domains</term><term>Knowledge elicitation</term><term>Knowledge organisation</term><term>Knowledge organization</term><term>Kyllesbech nielsen</term><term>Language system</term><term>Last example</term><term>Legal language</term><term>Legal research guides</term><term>Librarianship</term><term>Library pathfinders</term><term>Linguistics</term><term>Literature guides</term><term>Long range</term><term>Lykke nielsen</term><term>Machine translation</term><term>Many years</term><term>Mental models</term><term>Methodology</term><term>Narr</term><term>National library</term><term>Natural language</term><term>Natural language processing</term><term>Natural sciences</term><term>Ordinary people</term><term>Organisation</term><term>Organise</term><term>Other approaches</term><term>Other documents</term><term>Other domains</term><term>Other fields</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Other kinds</term><term>Other researchers</term><term>Pathfinder</term><term>Political attitudes</term><term>Present paper</term><term>Primary literature</term><term>Primitive people</term><term>Professional cognition</term><term>Proper research</term><term>Proper theory</term><term>Psychological language</term><term>Psychological research</term><term>Public administration</term><term>Public sphere</term><term>Publication form</term><term>Reception studies</term><term>Reference books</term><term>Reference literature</term><term>Reference material</term><term>Relevance assessment</term><term>Relevance criteria</term><term>Research method</term><term>Researcher</term><term>Retrieval</term><term>Retrieving</term><term>Retrieving specialities</term><term>Royal school</term><term>Royal society</term><term>Science researchers</term><term>Scientific article</term><term>Scientific classification</term><term>Scientific communication</term><term>Scientific journals</term><term>Scientific language</term><term>Seglen</term><term>Semantic distance model</term><term>Semantic distances</term><term>Semantic domains</term><term>Semantic relations</term><term>Semantics</term><term>Several reasons</term><term>Several ways</term><term>Sheraton chicago hotel towers chicago</term><term>Social anthropology</term><term>Social construction</term><term>Social constructivism</term><term>Social sciences</term><term>Social system</term><term>Sociological perspectives</term><term>Sociological theory</term><term>Special classifications</term><term>Special languages</term><term>Special librarianship</term><term>Special purpose</term><term>Special purposes</term><term>Special reference</term><term>Special schemes</term><term>Speciality</term><term>Specific domain</term><term>Specific domains</term><term>Stanford university press</term><term>Strong approach</term><term>Subject bibliography</term><term>Subject domain</term><term>Subject domains</term><term>Subject gateways</term><term>Subject guides</term><term>Subject knowledge</term><term>Subject knowledge view</term><term>Subject specialists</term><term>Sublanguage</term><term>Sublanguage description</term><term>Such knowledge</term><term>Such maps</term><term>Such models</term><term>Such paradigms</term><term>Such research</term><term>Such work</term><term>Symbol systems</term><term>Systematic names</term><term>Systems perspective</term><term>Technical report</term><term>Terminological</term><term>Terminological studies</term><term>Terminology</term><term>Terminology research</term><term>Text retrieval</term><term>Theoretical views</term><term>Thesaurus</term><term>Thesaurus construction</term><term>Trivial names</term><term>Tubingen</term><term>Twentieth century</term><term>User</term><term>User behaviour</term><term>User studies</term><term>User support</term><term>Virtual library</term><term>Wisconsin press</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domainspecific knowledge This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are producing literature guides and subject gateways producing special classifications and thesauri research on indexing and retrieving specialities empirical user studies bibliometrical studies historical studies document and genre studies epistemological and critical studies terminological studies, LSP languages for special purposes, discourse studies studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>information science</json:string><json:string>domain analysis</json:string><json:string>epistemological</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>database</json:string><json:string>jdoc</json:string><json:string>american society</json:string><json:string>bibliometric</json:string><json:string>retrieval</json:string><json:string>cognition</json:string><json:string>organisation</json:string><json:string>seglen</json:string><json:string>sublanguage</json:string><json:string>thesaurus</json:string><json:string>buckland</json:string><json:string>organise</json:string><json:string>garfield</json:string><json:string>bibliometrical</json:string><json:string>scientific communication</json:string><json:string>user studies</json:string><json:string>critical studies</json:string><json:string>information sources</json:string><json:string>asis</json:string><json:string>tubingen</json:string><json:string>historical studies</json:string><json:string>special classifications</json:string><json:string>methodology</json:string><json:string>librarianship</json:string><json:string>narr</json:string><json:string>semantics</json:string><json:string>information retrieval</json:string><json:string>artificial intelligence</json:string><json:string>speciality</json:string><json:string>other approaches</json:string><json:string>special purposes</json:string><json:string>thesaurus construction</json:string><json:string>retrieving</json:string><json:string>different domains</json:string><json:string>terminological</json:string><json:string>haas</json:string><json:string>citedness</json:string><json:string>aslib</json:string><json:string>pathfinder</json:string><json:string>computer science</json:string><json:string>domain</json:string><json:string>different kinds</json:string><json:string>bibliometrical studies</json:string><json:string>genre</json:string><json:string>other kinds</json:string><json:string>knowledge organization</json:string><json:string>terminological studies</json:string><json:string>american library association</json:string><json:string>information specialists</json:string><json:string>scientific classification</json:string><json:string>user</json:string><json:string>indexing</json:string><json:string>humanities</json:string><json:string>subject guides</json:string><json:string>discourse analysis</json:string><json:string>bibliometric analysis</json:string><json:string>citation analysis</json:string><json:string>information services</json:string><json:string>common language</json:string><json:string>genre analysis</json:string><json:string>empirical user studies</json:string><json:string>reception studies</json:string><json:string>classification research</json:string><json:string>literature guides</json:string><json:string>american chemical society</json:string><json:string>special librarianship</json:string><json:string>background knowledge</json:string><json:string>different disciplines</json:string><json:string>machine translation</json:string><json:string>american psychologist</json:string><json:string>classification systems</json:string><json:string>andersen</json:string><json:string>researcher</json:string><json:string>cognitive</json:string><json:string>citation indexes</json:string><json:string>information today</json:string><json:string>such work</json:string><json:string>royal society</json:string><json:string>primitive people</json:string><json:string>subject domains</json:string><json:string>bibliometric maps</json:string><json:string>legal research guides</json:string><json:string>indexing specialties</json:string><json:string>subject knowledge</json:string><json:string>information processing management</json:string><json:string>annual review</json:string><json:string>current contents</json:string><json:string>information behaviour</json:string><json:string>different communities</json:string><json:string>individual documents</json:string><json:string>other documents</json:string><json:string>such maps</json:string><json:string>annual meeting</json:string><json:string>natural language processing</json:string><json:string>bibliometric studies</json:string><json:string>national library</json:string><json:string>general librarianship</json:string><json:string>subject knowledge view</json:string><json:string>epistemological studies</json:string><json:string>general level</json:string><json:string>danmarks tekniske bibliotek</json:string><json:string>discourse studies</json:string><json:string>chemical substances</json:string><json:string>genre studies</json:string><json:string>retrieving specialities</json:string><json:string>specific domain</json:string><json:string>lykke nielsen</json:string><json:string>cambridge university press</json:string><json:string>citation</json:string><json:string>documentation</json:string><json:string>epistemology</json:string><json:string>bibliography</json:string><json:string>behaviour</json:string><json:string>information resources</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>subject bibliography</json:string><json:string>biological classification</json:string><json:string>basic units</json:string><json:string>such research</json:string><json:string>historical development</json:string><json:string>user behaviour</json:string><json:string>information studies</json:string><json:string>disciplinary communication</json:string><json:string>social system</json:string><json:string>long range</json:string><json:string>special reference</json:string><json:string>systems perspective</json:string><json:string>empirical data</json:string><json:string>information system</json:string><json:string>specific domains</json:string><json:string>cognitive sciences</json:string><json:string>several reasons</json:string><json:string>twentieth century</json:string><json:string>other researchers</json:string><json:string>reference material</json:string><json:string>empirical studies</json:string><json:string>last example</json:string><json:string>book reviews</json:string><json:string>several ways</json:string><json:string>reference books</json:string><json:string>strong approach</json:string><json:string>subject specialists</json:string><json:string>proper research</json:string><json:string>influential authors</json:string><json:string>other fields</json:string><json:string>classification researchers</json:string><json:string>many years</json:string><json:string>primary literature</json:string><json:string>reference literature</json:string><json:string>journal literature</json:string><json:string>natural sciences</json:string><json:string>classification schemes</json:string><json:string>royal school</json:string><json:string>psychological research</json:string><json:string>social anthropology</json:string><json:string>historical nature</json:string><json:string>such knowledge</json:string><json:string>chemische literatur</json:string><json:string>different approaches</json:string><json:string>present paper</json:string><json:string>historical methods</json:string><json:string>information architecture</json:string><json:string>information structures</json:string><json:string>information systems</json:string><json:string>high degree</json:string><json:string>scientific article</json:string><json:string>publication form</json:string><json:string>social constructivism</json:string><json:string>dynamic thesaural systems</json:string><json:string>composition studies</json:string><json:string>special schemes</json:string><json:string>important thing</json:string><json:string>such paradigms</json:string><json:string>relevance criteria</json:string><json:string>ordinary people</json:string><json:string>research method</json:string><json:string>sociological perspectives</json:string><json:string>knowledge domains</json:string><json:string>domain studies</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string><json:string>broad categories</json:string><json:string>semantic relations</json:string><json:string>special purpose</json:string><json:string>natural language</json:string><json:string>professional cognition</json:string><json:string>empirical basis</json:string><json:string>information scientist</json:string><json:string>sheraton chicago hotel towers chicago</json:string><json:string>epistemological assumptions</json:string><json:string>text retrieval</json:string><json:string>systematic names</json:string><json:string>subject domain</json:string><json:string>trivial names</json:string><json:string>scientific language</json:string><json:string>psychological language</json:string><json:string>theoretical views</json:string><json:string>legal language</json:string><json:string>case study</json:string><json:string>different lsps</json:string><json:string>user support</json:string><json:string>consumer goods</json:string><json:string>library pathfinders</json:string><json:string>language system</json:string><json:string>information management</json:string><json:string>database semantics</json:string><json:string>symbol systems</json:string><json:string>semantic distances</json:string><json:string>electronic retrieval</json:string><json:string>kyllesbech nielsen</json:string><json:string>essential business reference sources</json:string><json:string>social construction</json:string><json:string>implicit information</json:string><json:string>knowledge organisation</json:string><json:string>other domains</json:string><json:string>public sphere</json:string><json:string>such models</json:string><json:string>empirical questions</json:string><json:string>sociological theory</json:string><json:string>internal division</json:string><json:string>public administration</json:string><json:string>knowledge elicitation</json:string><json:string>expert systems</json:string><json:string>clinical cognition</json:string><json:string>political attitudes</json:string><json:string>cognitive convictions</json:string><json:string>science researchers</json:string><json:string>mental models</json:string><json:string>appropriate goal</json:string><json:string>collaborative information retrieval</json:string><json:string>virtual library</json:string><json:string>clinical information systems</json:string><json:string>classification research workshop</json:string><json:string>german origin</json:string><json:string>international handbook</json:string><json:string>special languages</json:string><json:string>terminology research</json:string><json:string>subject gateways</json:string><json:string>great number</json:string><json:string>chemical elements</json:string><json:string>digital libraries</json:string><json:string>wisconsin press</json:string><json:string>benjamins translation library</json:string><json:string>information guides</json:string><json:string>semantic distance model</json:string><json:string>relevance assessment</json:string><json:string>proper theory</json:string><json:string>information processing</json:string><json:string>citation indexing</json:string><json:string>document representation</json:string><json:string>sublanguage description</json:string><json:string>automatic identification</json:string><json:string>semantic domains</json:string><json:string>greenwood press</json:string><json:string>gulbenkian commission</json:string><json:string>stanford university press</json:string><json:string>scientific journals</json:string><json:string>technical report</json:string><json:string>important part</json:string><json:string>journal impact factors</json:string><json:string>classification</json:string><json:string>linguistics</json:string><json:string>terminology</json:string><json:string>document</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Birger Hjrland</name><affiliations><json:string>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Information technology</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Knowledge workers</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Documentation</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>e-literature-review</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domainspecific knowledge This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are producing literature guides and subject gateways producing special classifications and thesauri research on indexing and retrieving specialities empirical user studies bibliometrical studies historical studies document and genre studies epistemological and critical studies terminological studies, LSP languages for special purposes, discourse studies studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.608</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>522 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>3</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1020</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>16398</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>107551</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>41</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>134</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Domain analysis in information science</title><genre><json:string>review-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Documentation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1108/jd</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0022-0418</json:string></issn><publisherId><json:string>jd</json:string></publisherId><volume>58</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>422</first><last>462</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Information & knowledge management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information & communications technology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information management & governance</value></json:item><json:item><value>Internet</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Classification & cataloguing</value></json:item><json:item><value>Collection building & management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information behaviour & retrieval</value></json:item><json:item><value>Records management & preservation</value></json:item><json:item><value>Scholarly communications/publishing</value></json:item><json:item><value>Document management</value></json:item></subject></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>information science & library science</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>information & library sciences</json:string></scienceMetrix><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>sociologie</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/00220410210431136</json:string></doi><id>DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Domain analysis in information science</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><availability><p>© MCB UP Limited</p></availability><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Domain analysis in information science</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Birger</forename><surname>Hjrland</surname></persName><affiliation>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/00220410210431136</idno><idno type="filenameID">2780580404</idno><idno type="original-pdf">2780580404.pdf</idno><idno type="href">00220410210431136.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Documentation</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-0418</idno><idno type="PublisherID">jd</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/jd</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2002-08-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">58</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="422">422</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="462">462</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domainspecific knowledge This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are producing literature guides and subject gateways producing special classifications and thesauri research on indexing and retrieving specialities empirical user studies bibliometrical studies historical studies document and genre studies epistemological and critical studies terminological studies, LSP languages for special purposes, discourse studies studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Information technology</term></item><item><term>Knowledge workers</term></item><item><term>Documentation</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-IKM</label><item><term>Information & knowledge management</term></item><label>cat-ICT</label><item><term>Information & communications technology</term></item><label>cat-IMG</label><item><term>Information management & governance</term></item><label>cat-INT</label><item><term>Internet</term></item><label>cat-IMAN</label><item><term>Information management</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-CCAT</label><item><term>Classification & cataloguing</term></item><label>cat-CBM</label><item><term>Collection building & management</term></item><label>cat-IBRT</label><item><term>Information behaviour & retrieval</term></item><label>cat-RMP</label><item><term>Records management & preservation</term></item><label>cat-SCPG</label><item><term>Scholarly communications/publishing</term></item><label>cat-DOCM</label><item><term>Document management</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-08-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="e-literature-review"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jd</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/jd</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Documentation</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0022-0418</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MCB UP Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/00220410210431136</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">2780580404.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">2780580404</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">e-literature-review</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Literature review</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IKM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & knowledge management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-ICT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & communications technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-INT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Internet</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IMG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information management & governance</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IMAN</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CCAT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Classification & cataloguing</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CBM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Collection building & management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-SCPG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Scholarly communications/publishing</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IBRT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information behaviour & retrieval</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-RMP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Records management & preservation</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-DOCM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Document management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Domain analysis in information science</article-title><subtitle>Eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Birger</given-names> <surname>Hjørland</surname></string-name><aff>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>08</month><year>2002</year></pub-date><volume>58</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>422</fpage><lpage>462</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© MCB UP Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2002</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="00220410210431136.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p>What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain‐specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways; producing special classifications and thesauri; research on indexing and retrieving specialities; empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Information technology</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Knowledge workers</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Documentation</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta><ack><p>The author thanks Trine Fjord Søndergaard for drawing Figure 3.</p></ack></front><body><sec><title>Introduction: the role of domain studies in IS</title><p>Information science developed out of special librarianship and documentation, and special librarianship has an approach that has often lacked understanding from general librarianship (see Williams, 1997). I think it is important to understand this tension. Special librarians are, in my opinion, not “special”, but represent a valuable and fruitful general approach to library and information science (LIS). It is not the purpose of this article to present or discuss the relation between general librarianship and special librarianship. The core idea of the specialist library approach may be that information resources should be identified, described, organised and communicated to serve specific goals. Obviously, medical librarianship (documentation or information science) should serve people dealing with health problems. The criterion of the success of doctors is the cure of the patients. The criterion of the success of information systems is that they identify and communicate the knowledge needed for the doctors to cure the patients. I think that this view has been an implicit philosophy in documentation and information science. In my opinion even general librarianship has to cope with different domains and may well benefit from considering the domain analytic view. One cannot treat all domains as if they are fundamentally similar, and a theoretical approach to LIS should consider different discourse communities.</p><p>The main problem with this philosophy has been how to train professional information specialists and do research without just teaching research subject knowledge <italic>per se</italic>. An ordinary subject specialist is not a specialist in IS. The domain analytic approach (Hjørland, 1993; Hjørland and Albrechtsen, 1995) is an attempt to tackle this problem, and the present paper is a specification of a number of different approaches within the domain analytic view that can be used to obtain this goal. By bringing these approaches together the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. </p></sec><sec><title>Producing literature guides or subject gateways</title><p>Literature guides may also be termed “guides to information sources”, “guides to reference materials”, “how to find out about … ”, “pathfinders”, “subject gateways”, etc. They are publications that list and describe the system of information resources in one or more areas. Bottle (1997, p. 213) writes: “Probably the first distinct information science literature type was the literature guide. An early example was Ostwald’s <italic>Die chemische Literatur und die Organisation der Wissenschaft</italic> (Leipzig, 1919)”.</p><p>A guide is a kind of bibliography of documents in a domain, but it deviates from typical subject bibliographies. First, a guide concentrates on reference literature (bibliographies, dictionaries, encyclopaedias etc.) at the expense of primary literature. Second, a guide is typically selective (more or less so), while, for example, a bibliography of bibliographies tends to be comprehensive. There are of course many variations or sub‐types of guides as of any other kind of literature. Guides can include more or less text in addition to the bibliographical entries (which should be annotated). Ideally, a guide guides the user in the management of the literature. It informs him about the strengths and weaknesses of different works, and it should provide the basis for a rational section of works to use and help the user to navigate in the ocean of literature, databases and information. It can be seen as a kind of interface between the user and the literature, and it can be seen as a kind of textbook for courses in literature searching or as a self‐help book for library and information use. One could also say that a guide is an explication of what librarians do when they build collections and learn to use them in order to provide reference services.</p><p>The American Library Association as well as Library Association in London has for many years published <italic>Guide to Reference Books</italic> (Balay <italic>et al.</italic>, 1996) and <italic>Walford’s Guide to Reference Material</italic> (Day and Walsh, 2000) respectively. These are very comprehensive guides covering all subject areas and are considered valuable and classic sources in the library community. Examples of guides in the social sciences include Hoselitz (1970), Li (2000), Roberts (1977) and Webb (1986). The last mentioned is ambitious and worth mentioning for several reasons. Being published by American Library Association it demonstrates an important initiative from the LIS community in relation to serving specific domains. It includes descriptions of the information system in the social sciences and approaches to the social sciences supporting some of the different approaches to information studies suggested in the present article. Unfortunately, however, it has not been updated since 1986. If IS should have a real impact such works need to, in my opinion, be continuously updated and also followed by educational initiatives.</p><p>The producing of such guides is part of the discipline known as special or subject bibliography (see e.g. Hale, 1970). This is a subdiscipline in LIS which has declined considerably, and it is unfortunately hardly visible today. We need research of, for example, the history of information guides, their form and functions in general as well as in different areas of knowledge and the development of adequate technologies and integration with other products such as OPACs.</p><p>Among the few studies in this field are <italic>A Survey of Subject Guides to Sources of Information Produced by Library and Information Services in the United Kingdom</italic> (Taylor, 1978) conducted by ASLIB, Mayes’ (1978) investigation of the readability of guides to the literature, and Kapoun’s (1995) discussion of criteria for the evaluation of guides. Anson and Woodward (1992) and Surles (1989) surveyed legal research guides, while Allen (1993) surveyed essential business reference sources. Bertram (1974) presented library pathfinders developed in project Intrex by the library staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bland (1990); Jarvis (1985) and Summerville (1990) discuss how subject guides may be integrated into the library catalogues. Davenport and Vajs (1987) outlined developments which include on‐line guides that will have direct links to the Library of Congress SCORPIO system, while Colby <italic>et al</italic>. (2001) present OCLC’s initiatives concerning the incorporation of pathfinders to their services.</p><p>What is the method of this approach to domain analysis? What are the strong and weak sides of it?</p><p>The method consists of:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>surveying the literature in a domain;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>classifying it according to its specific roles or functions in information seeking, developing a taxonomy or typology of kinds of documents;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>describing the characteristics of individual reference works (idiographical approach);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>selecting the most important sources; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>providing guidelines about how to use the information sources.</p></list-item></list><p>As a research method this is not recognised as proper research. One real weakness is that the methods and decisions are not explicated and considered. It is rather seen as compilatory work than as research. (The idiographical method is, however, accepted as research in the humanities.) Work of this kind is poorly represented in book reviews in scientific journals in IS and the authors/compilators thus poorly cited. Another problem is that such work is extremely time consuming and becomes obsolete very fast.</p><p>It has, however, also strong sides. It is really important to know the most important information sources in one or more domains at a rather detailed level. It has a strong relevance for practical information work. It develops a feeling of the structures of information sources from a systems point of view. Other kinds of domain analysis (e.g. user studies) need this kind of knowledge as a basis. Alternative kinds of research also have weaknesses, and one should not abandon an approach because of some prejudices if the alternatives are not better.</p><p>Conclusion: our profession and discipline need quality subject guides to be produced. We should develop criteria of how to explicate and evaluate such work and we should review such work more intensively. We should also combine such work with other approaches to domain analysis. Research in this area could benefit by being combined with other approaches to domain analysis, in particular:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>producing special classifications;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>document and genre studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>Constructing special classifications and thesauri</title><p>Professional literature about classifying specific fields of knowledge is limited in amount and in methodology. Most research on classification is about universal classification schemes and little has been done about special domains. The lack of interest in special schemes is problematic for several reasons, one being that lack of knowledge on the classification of a specific field also is reflected in the updating and revision of universal schemes (see e.g. McIlwaine 2000). The neglect of research on special classification systems must also be seen in contrast to the great number of classification systems in existence. Almost every database like MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, 2001) or PsycINFO (2002) has a special classification system which has been developed independently of methodologies of information science, but just developed <italic>ad hoc</italic>.</p><p>Thesauri are mainly domain specific vocabularies, and the methodology of designing them can also be seen as one (implicit) form of domain analysis. There exist standards and guidelines for their development, and a prominent manual is that of Aitchison <italic>et al. </italic>(2000). The literature about thesauri seems somewhat larger and broader in methodology compared to special classifications. The dominant methodology for constructing thesauri seems to be related to the facet analytic method in classification. The use of natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is also relatively well represented in the literature (see Spark Jones, 1992). The use of citation, co‐citation analysis and citation context analysis for thesaurus construction is described by Rees‐Potter and Rees‐Potter (1989, 1991), who investigated a mechanism by which thesauri can be semi‐automatically constructed and maintained based on the hypothesis that highly cited papers are concept symbols. This last example is a unique attempt to broaden the set of methodologies of thesaurus construction. Spark Jones (1992) concludes her article saying: “There is, however, a manifest need for more work applying automatic classification methods that already exist to the field and on developing relevant new methods”. This confirms my own experience that the methodology still seems to be rather narrow.</p><p>Both classification systems and thesauri consist basically of the central concepts of a domain arranged according to semantic relations such as generic relations and synonymity, for which reason the methodologies for constructing them must fundamentally be related, which is also stressed by Aitchison (1995) in her review of Class R of the Bliss system (2nd ed.): </p><disp-quote><p>Class R Politics and Public Administration could become a model for future classification systems and thesauri in the field of politics … </p></disp-quote><p>In the rest of this section some perspectives on the methodology of classification are introduced, without distinguishing thesaurus construction from special classifications.</p><p>We can differentiate between classification systems for documents (“bibliographical classification systems”) and classification systems for the objects of the study of different disciplines such as animals, mental diseases, chemical elements, historical periods, etc. (“scientific classification”). There are many important works on scientific classification, among others, Bryant (2001), Hull (1998) and various articles in <italic>Encyclopaedia Britannica</italic>. Under the label Taxonomy, Hull (1998) discusses biological classification and states that:</p><disp-quote><p>The fundamental elements of any classification are its theoretical commitments, basic units and the criteria for ordering these basic units into a classification. Two fundamentally different sorts of classification are those that reflect structural organisation and those that are systematically related to historical development.</p></disp-quote><p>Later on he continues under the heading “Epistemology and the goals of classification”:</p><disp-quote><p>Throughout the history of biological systematics, conflicts have arisen over the kind and degree of certainty that is required in science. At one extreme, some systematists are satisfied to produce classifications based on a host of tacit evaluations and patchy evidence. For them, classification is mainly an art. At the other extreme, are those systematists who insist that intuitive guesses must be replaced by strict quantitative techniques. These systematists also view scientific theories with suspicion. Two sorts of “theory” have come under special scrutiny – phylogeny reconstruction and evolutionary theory itself. Systematists have rediscovered a problem long familiar to philosophers. How can one know that a particular chunk of metal is gold unless one knows what gold is, and how can one know what gold is without inspecting some samples of gold? But if one does not know what gold is, one cannot decide what to inspect … (Hull, 1998).</p></disp-quote><p>The answer to the problem raised is, in my opinion, that we change our scientific concepts as our theoretical knowledge develops. Whales were once classified as fish but are today classified as mammals. Science penetrates from the surface of things to more essential qualities. Classifications are thus closely connected to scientific theories. Courses and research in bibliographical classification tend, unfortunately, to ignore such literature about scientific classification. An exception is found at the homepage of Professor Michael Buckland (1998), where texts on biological classification are included as course material.</p><p>The neglect of scientific classification is also reflected in the scarce contact between subject specialists and classification researchers in LIS. One example is that classification schemes and thesauri seldom are reviewed in journals from the domains they cover. Another example is that when subject specialists get jobs in schools of library and information science, they often express sceptical views on how their fields of knowledge are treated in universal classification systems. Thus, during his employment at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, the anthropologist Jan Ovesen criticised the way anthropology was classified in the Danish Decimal Classification:</p><disp-quote><p>In the academic world, both in Denmark and internationally, cultural and social anthropology (in Denmark still termed by its former name: ethnography) is an independent science with its own institutes at universities, own terminology and scientific historical development and a relatively well delimited subject literature. [Note omitted.] This is, however, not the case in DK5! [The Danish Decimal Classification System, 5th. ed., which is a Danish modified Dewey system]. In this system it is more important, apparently, to draw meaningless distinctions between, for example, European and non‐European cultures, between “developed cultures” and “primitive people”, between the life of ordinary people and cultural processes, between social anthropology and ethnography etc. These distinctions obviously come from the strange understanding that ethnography should only deal with the pure <italic>description </italic>of <italic>primitive </italic>people, who are <italic>not </italic>in a <italic>process of cultural change</italic> caused by the meeting with the Western World. From the point of view of the discipline such delimitation is totally absurd. Firstly, there is today general consensus that “pure descriptions” do not exist in ethnography or in other humanistic disciplines. Descriptions are not independent of the cultural background, the education, the personality etc. of the ethnographer. All description involves at the same time some kind of interpretation or even analysis. Secondly, decades of discussion about the concept of primitivism have resulted in the view that it seems no longer meaningful to use the phrase “primitive people”. Thirdly, today there are only few if any groups of people who have not been culturally changed in one way or another caused by the contact with Western industrialised societies. One thus faces the paradoxical situation that the discipline of anthropology, which for decades has experienced an important growth and development, is represented in DK5 by a class (59.5) in which the increase of literature must, of necessity, be very limited. The result has been that the central works of anthropology are not kept together but are scattered in a number of rather different classes. Besides class 59.5 the classes 29, 30.12, 39 and 98 are the most important ones … (Ovesen, 1989, pp. 120‐2; translated by B.H., emphasis in original).</p></disp-quote><p>As already mentioned classification research in LIS has not only ignored the principles of classification for the objects of different disciplines but also the principles and methodologies for constructing bibliographical systems developed in many kinds of databases, reference literature and special libraries. LIS has so far not been able to make itself visible in a broader context. There are, however, some relevant contributions on which we can build.</p><p>The pioneering works about classification of subject domains in LIS are related to the facet analytic tradition of Ranganathan. Examples of methodologies described in the literature include Mills (1957), Mills and Broughton (1977), and Vickery (1960). The <italic>Bliss Bibliographical Classification</italic> (2nd ed.) represents a major effort and an impressive methodology for classifying different subject fields.</p><p>As an approach to the classification of a subject field the facet analytic tradition has been almost totally dominating in LIS. Hjørland (1998a) sees this approach as related to rationalist philosophy and as containing the same strengths and limitations as this philosophy. It has not much to say about the empirical basis for classification. In this respect methods such as bibliometrics are much stronger. It has not much to say either about historical, pragmatic and critical methods. According to Hjørland (2000) knowledge about, for example, the development and epistemological assumptions of the social sciences is necessary in order to understand, develop or evaluate classification schemes that incorporate the social sciences (whether universal or special). A text that seriously considers the consequences of classifications and their social and ideological embeddedness and thus applies what I label the pragmatic approach is Bowker and Star (1999). All these perspectives are missing in the facet analytic tradition, but should be considered. Hjørland (1998a) discusses the main methodologies for classifying a subject domain and compares them in a case study of psychology.</p><p>While the construction of special classifications seems not to be a flourishing activity in IS, it seems that the same activity is flourishing in computer science under the label ontologies (see Soergel, 1999 and Vickery, 1997). Even here, the methodology seems, however, to be rather narrow.</p><p>Conclusion: classification research is often regarded as a cornerstone in LIS. As demonstrated above, we need, however, to broaden its perspective and to take it more seriously as a field of research. It seems to share many of the same kinds of weaknesses and strengths as the production of subject guides: it has a high practical value, but it is difficult and time‐consuming and has too little academic reward. None of the leading classification researchers are thus visible in bibliometric maps such as White and McCain (1998).</p><p>Research on classification of subject domains can benefit from co‐operating with other approaches to domain analysis, in particular with:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>research on indexing and retrieving specialities;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>bibliometrical studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>historical studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>terminological studies and LSP (languages for special purposes).</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>Indexing and retrieving specialities</title><p>In the 1970s a series of textbooks about indexing and classification in the social sciences, the humanities and in science was published (Foskett, 1974; Langridge, 1976; Vickery, 1975). When these books became obsolete it was very difficult to find suitable successors for courses about indexing and retrieval in specific domains at schools of LIS. One good sign of an increasing interest in this issue is the starting of the publication of the book series, <italic>Indexing Specialties</italic>, which started in 1998[1].</p><p>None of the above mentioned titles represent proper research activities in LIS, and they are rather unrelated to mainstream research in IS. The most promising researcher in this field is, in my opinion, H.R. Tibbo (1992, 1993, 1994), who clearly demonstrates the limitations of universal indexing principles (and the existing standards) in the humanities. When the <italic>Arts & Humanities Citation Index</italic> was produced Garfield (1980) wrote an important article about the differences between the humanities on the one side and the sciences and social sciences on the other, which is also very relevant. Among the few other relevant contributions are Bates (1987, 1998), Hjørland (1988), Walker (1990) and Wiberly (1983).</p><p>In the subject databases thousands of documents are indexed each month. This indexing is open to study by different methods. A proper theory or approach to document representation and retrieval should relate to this publicly available material. Research on indexing, document representation and retrieval should be able to evaluate bad practices and improve them. If this is not done, it becomes difficult to argue for further research in this area. Too often library and information specialists feel they lack adequate subject knowledge. In order to claim the existence of the field as a serious field of study one has, however, to develop sufficient subject knowledge in at least one field (e.g. LIS itself). The application of LIS principles to a specific task may make research in information science more relevant and realistic.</p><p>There is more research on domain specific retrieval and indexing than has been mentioned here. Especially in the fields of biology, chemistry, geography, medicine and law. Much of this research activity seems unfortunately to live its own life and to be rather isolated from mainstream journals of information science. For example, there are more than 4,000 hits on <italic>Geographic (w)information(w)system?</italic> in SCI & SSCI. There are 692 hits in <italic>International Journal of Geographic Information Science</italic> alone, but only seven records in five leading journals in IS: <italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Journal of Documentation, Information Processing & Management, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology</italic> and <italic>Journal of Information Science</italic> together!</p><p>Only a few schools of LIS offer advanced degrees in specialized information science, among them Sheffield, UK, which among other programs has one in Chemoinformatics. There seems to be an obvious need to strengthen such initiatives on a broader front.</p><p>Conclusion: indexing and retrieving information is always specific. Main stream IS has, however, largely ignored the way different domains may put different demands on systems for organising and retrieving documents. A stronger focus on different domains may make our field more realistic and our masters more relevant in different environments. Such research might benefit by co‐operating with, among others:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>producing special classifications and thesauri;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>bibliometrical studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>Empirical user studies</title><p>There is a lot of research about user behaviour, information seeking behaviour, user surveys etc. in the literature of LIS, going back at least to a study by Bernal (1948). In contrast to the production of literature guides and special classifications, user studies have an air of being proper research, which, however, only seldom corresponds with reality.</p><p>From a domain analytic point of view the studies by the American Psychological Association (1963‐1969, 1969‐1971) and Garvey and Griffith (1967, 1971, 1972) stand out as comprehensive empirical studies of user behaviour. Among Belver C. Griffith’s many contributions to disciplinary communication is the idea that science and scholarship at large constitute a social system to be investigated empirically. These studies had the explicit goal of using this knowledge as the basis for constructing principles for designing a national information system for psychology. They were started in an optimistic atmosphere and it was expected that the entrance of behavioural scientists in this field would start a new field in applied psychology (scientific communication and related terms were, for example, added as descriptors in the PsycINFO database). The <italic>Annual Review of Information Science and Technology</italic> published during many years regularly reviews chapters on “information needs and use” studies. Brittain (1970) was one of a long range of reviews of user studies with special reference to the social sciences.</p><p>One general conclusion from this research is the disappointing fact that scientists are not using formal information services as much as the providers of those services could wish. Instead, they depend very much on informal communication. There also seems to be a tendency to prefer physical availability of information sources even at the cost of quality. The studies also contributed by describing scientific communication in a systems perspective, providing empirical data about the use of various elements in the system as well as the time‐factors associated with different kinds of primary, secondary and tertiary information services.</p><p>In spite of such results, it is my feeling that there has always been something fundamentally problematic with the research tradition of user studies considered as a whole. Much of the scepticism about user studies is related to the lack of adequate theories guiding this research. It has explicitly been formulated that such theory would appear when enough empirical data had been collected, which is a naive form of inductionism. The dominant traditions in both information science and in behavioural and cognitive sciences have neglected culturally mediating factors in people’s relationship with information and just tried to study generalized persons’ relation to something termed “information”. In these traditions people are expected to react to something in a specific, mechanical way without considering the culturally determined meanings and without considering the different goals and values of the meanings and of the documents.</p><p>Empirical user studies have also often built on the assumption that we as information specialists can learn what we need to know about information from users. However, information specialists should be the experts in information organisation and searching, we cannot expect to learn our profession by studying the behaviour of non‐professionals. The tendency to try to measure users’ information need by questioning them or by studying their behaviour seems to me mistaken. What information is needed to solve a given problem is not primarily a psychological question, but a theoretical/philosophical one:</p><disp-quote><p>For instance, a student solving a geometry problem involving a right‐angled rectangle may not see the connection to the Pythagorean Theorem (Lakemeyer, 1997, p. 138). </p></disp-quote><p>This implies that they do not know what documents to search, and when they have found the needed information, they may be unable to recognise this. Therefore, information scientists cannot expect to learn how to organise and search information by studying or asking users. On the contrary: any interpretation of users’ behaviour must presuppose some a priory principles in IS.</p><p>A radical critique of a somewhat different nature is posed by Professor Vesa Suominen (2001), who writes: </p><disp-quote><p>Without denying the value of focusing on the user during the last decennia of twentieth century, I would argue against the self‐evident, ideological position of “userism” [read: consumerism] within the discipline … On the level of the themes of the present paper I can in a bit rough manner sum up this criticism of “userism” as follows. We must not only consider a library:</p></disp-quote><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>in terms of users’ (citizens’) interests and “rights” to receive information, but also;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in terms of society’s and culture’s interests and “rights” to have their members informed, to not forget quite legitimate interests of a state, for instance, and yet;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>authors’ interests and “rights” to inform, this last coming quite close to the ideals of the freedom of expression.</p></list-item></list><p>The feeling of uneasiness about user studies is supported by Wilson (1994) who made a review of 50 years of research on user studies and questioned the value of most of it. Wilson himself, as well as other researchers, developed a new approach to user studies in which context and task is taken more into account. The series of conferences named International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts represents this new trend in user studies. In reality, however, the bulk of produced research can hardly be characterized as domain analytic, and, in my opinion, it still has problems with its theoretical assumptions. An influential researcher is communication researcher Brenda Dervin, who has developed the sense making approach, which is actually the most cited approach about user studies in IS. In Dervin (1999) the relation between methods, methodology and metatheory is described. I find the views expressed here important, e.g. that users are regarded as theorists as well as the emphasis which is put on hermeneutics. I have also argued (Hjørland, 1998b) that epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information‐seeking behaviour. In spite of this agreement, however, other contributions to be presented below seem for me to match better what is needed from a domain analytic point of view.</p><p>Bates (1987) has pointed out that information itself has been neglected as a variable in user studies. This is in my opinion an important observation that has not got as much attention as it deserves. The most useful recent studies I know of are produced by the Danish sociologist, Heine Andersen. He has published a series of empirical studies on Danish social scientists that I find highly valuable. Andersen (2000), for example, provides us with valuable information about the relative consensus of social scientists regarding the most highly esteemed researchers and scientific journals in their field of expertise. These data provide insight into the difference between a Danish survey and the journal impact factor (JIF). They also provide insight into how social sciences differ from each other in this respect. What makes these studies relevant is that they consider domains as well as traditions as important factors in information behaviour. The studies are also directly applicable to practical issues in LIS, e.g. concerning the selection of information sources.</p><p>Conclusion: empirical studies of users may represent an important approach to domain analysis in IS if they are informed by proper theory. They may, for example, provide information about differences in information needs in different communities. They should be combined with other approaches, including:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>bibliometrical studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>Bibliometrical studies</title><p>Bibliometrics is an exciting area of study although its use as an instrument in research evaluation is much disputed. It can be used as a tool and method in domain analysis in several ways. It has, for example, become popular to make bibliometric maps or visualizations of scientific areas based on co‐citation analysis. A well‐known example is that of White and McCain (1998), who explicitly refer to their approach as domain analysis and acknowledge Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995). Some examples of Garfield’s pioneering research in the area of bibliometric analysis of domains are given in Garfield (1976, 1979, 1992). Bibliometrics is a strong approach because it shows many detailed and real connections between individual documents. These links represent the authors’ explicit acknowledgment of dependency between, for example, papers, researchers, fields, approaches and geographical regions.</p><p>In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2780580404001">Figure 1</xref> shows an example from library and information science produced by Persson (2000, 2001). In order to understand the strengths and limitations of bibliometrics, it is important to consider what factors influence the outcome of such a map in a systematic fashion.</p><p>First, the databases available and the selection of journals and other documents that form the empirical basis for producing the map are very important. Given databases are always limited, and the kind of limitation cannot be regarded as neutral. The citation databases produced by Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia have, for example, a very low coverage of monographs, and monographs have not the same bibliometrical distribution as journals (cf. Cronin <italic>et al</italic>., 1997). When journals are selected to represent a discipline or a domain, the actual selection reveals implicit definitions about the discipline. A discipline has always many subfields and connections to other fields, and any selection favours some subfields at the expense of others. Speaking about LIS, how are journals related to classification research, human‐computer interaction, library history and many other fields represented? How is the decision reached about what journals to include in the database or in the specific study? (If journals are included on the basis of their JIF we have a problematic circular argumentation.) In LIS Gerald Salton is presently among the most cited authors. One could, however, argue that he is a researcher from computer science and not from LIS. All this implies that one’s view on this issue depends on the theoretical view of LIS, which influences which journals are selected, which again influences which authors are most visible on such maps. If, for example, classification research is regarded an important subfield of LIS, other journals such as <italic>Knowledge Organization</italic> should be included.</p><p>Second, such maps depend very much on the citation behaviour of the authors writing the papers on which the maps are based. Garfield (1965), Kováts (1977), Cronin (1984) and Seglen (1996a) among others have provided insight into the motives of citation and their implications for bibliometric analysis (“citationology”). The most obvious bias is the negative citations in which authors cite other documents in order to express their disagreement. One well known and well documented example is the Harvard psychologist Arthur Jensen who got most of his citations from researchers who were in disagreement with and critical of Jensen’s work (see Garfield, 1978). This example indicates that some papers may be too much cited. Another kind of bias is represented by different kinds of non‐citedness or under‐citedness. Kováts (1977) investigates non‐indexed eponymal citedness (NIEC) as well as non‐indexed indirect‐collective citedness. NIEC refers to the practice of referring to a law, a concept, an instrument etc. (e.g. “Pauli exclusion principle”) without direct reference to the author or the work in which this law or concept was first presented. Because of this practice, outstanding achievements often receive less than 50 percent of the citations they ought to be credited with. Kováts (1977) also reported that non‐indexed indirect‐collective references of the form (e.g. “ … and the references cited therein”) were found in 14.8 percent of the articles in <italic>Physical Journal </italic>in 1969, and such articles cited at least ten times more articles indirectly than directly. Kováts (1977, p. 707) concludes:</p><disp-quote><p>It must (should) be taken into consideration that the stock of indexed references in the journal literature of natural sciences is only a part of the real stock of references; that indexed citedness is not identical with real citedness; that the Citation Indexes are not suitable for the measurement of real literature citedness. There is a need to amend, limit and reduce the now commonly accepted meaning, value and validity of the quantified data of the Citation Indexes and of “citation analysis” and “metric” studies based on them. This need especially applies where these studies wish to (mis)use the citation data of the Citation Indexes for the evaluation of scientists as scientists or other similar, non‐bibliographic purposes.</p></disp-quote><p>Whether this conclusion is reasonable will not be discussed further here. In this place I only wish to point to a possible kind of bias in interpreting bibliometric data.</p><p>Third, large amounts of research may be produced by using approaches that are selected because they are more easy or convenient for the researchers to apply. If we assume, for example, that longitudinal studies are superior research methods in psychological research, many researchers may desist from using it simply because it is time consuming (one has to follow a group of people during several years). This is especially the case with time‐limited research projects such as PhD programs. This implies that books about longitudinal methods tend to be underrepresented in such maps in spite of their superior quality and importance. In the same way we must expect many documents to be underrepresented because they are written in certain languages, they use difficult mathematics, they are using a different theoretical perspective etc. The case of the Danish statistician, Rasch (1960), is illustrative. His main work was published in 1960. Very slowly (but steadily), his influence has been growing. This suggests that the delay in using his methods is simply the result of a lack of statistical knowledge within great international areas of the social sciences. In LIS there may be a corresponding tendency to overcite easy theories and methods at the expense of more difficult but also more important papers. For example, in relevance research a tendency to blur subjective and objective conceptions of relevance can be mentioned. To the degree that this third argument is true, it paints a rather pessimistic picture of the quality of much published research. Nonetheless, I expect this to be a realistic picture, and this consideration, of course, influences the interpretations of bibliometric studies.</p><p>Fourth, independent of convenience, some theories or authors may at any given time in any given location and discipline be more popular or “in” compared to other theories or authors. Concepts such as <italic>Zeitgeist</italic>, trends and ideologies describe this phenomenon. Today a person like Pierre Bourdieu seems to be very popular not just in sociology, but also in educational studies, library and information studies, psychology and many other fields. Such a tendency is often self‐perpetuating. It is, of course, difficult to tell when the use of an author or a theory just represents a fad, an ideological movement, and when it represents real scientific progress. Some people would perhaps say that there is no difference between “scientific progress” and “changing paradigms”. This is a deep philosophical problem, which will not be discussed further here (I expect the answer to be different in different domains). At this point it must be sufficient to say that such epistemological theories are very relevant to the interpretation of bibliometric maps provided that they are based on serious arguments. Such arguments can be qualified by other kinds of methods than the bibliometrical ones, for example by historical and epistemological methods[2]. </p><p>Conclusion: bibliometrics is a strong approach to domain analysis because it is empirical and based on detailed analysis of connections between individual documents. One needs, however, to consider different kinds of possible bias very carefully. Besides, in order to interpret bibliometric analyses properly, one needs some knowledge of other kinds too, including:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>historical studies; and </p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>Historical studies</title><p>Historical methods and studies have not been much utilized in information science (or LIS) if we disregard historical studies of information science and libraries. Historical studies are, however, relevant in a much broader and deeper way. One of the great pioneers of bibliometrical studies, Derek J. de Solla Price (1922‐1983), was also a historian of science. His research often gained more perspective compared to many other bibliometricans because of this fact.</p><p>If one is going to study, for example, the classification of social sciences (or just to evaluate how they are classified in given systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification) one needs some background information of a historical nature like, for example, that provided by Wallerstein <italic>et al.</italic> (1996; summarised in Hjørland, 2000). For a deeper understanding of a field like psychology, I find the works of Danziger (e.g. 1990, 1997) indispensable. Such knowledge is mandatory as background knowledge for classifying psychology (see Hjørland, 1998a). Related works of a more general character are the influential books by Foucault (e.g. 1970, 1972), which have given birth to the influential method of discourse analysis.</p><p>While the history of science in general is too broad to be considered part of IS, one could make a distinction between ordinary historical studies of subject domains on the one hand and historical studies emphasising the development of terminology, categories, literatures, genres, communication systems etc. on the other. The last mentioned part should be seen as approaches to domain analysis in IS. The ASIS Conferences on History of Information Systems represent an important example of this approach. The first conference in this series took place in 1998 (see Bowden <italic>et al.,</italic> 1998).</p><p>Conclusion: one should not only regard historical studies as a way to celebrate a field and give it a higher status. Historical methods should be regarded as substantial methods in IS. When it comes to understanding documents, organisations, systems, knowledge and information, a historical perspective and historical methods are often able to provide a much deeper and more coherent and ecological perspective compared to non‐historical kinds of research of a mechanist nature.</p></sec><sec><title>Document and genre studies</title><sec><title>Information structures, information architecture</title><p>The concepts of information architecture (IA)[3] as well as genres[4] and information structures have become important in information science and related fields[5] , partly due to the introduction of full text retrieval systems, passage retrieval systems as well as HTML‐based hyper text systems on the Internet.</p><p>These important concepts need, however, to be based on more general theories of documents, their communicative purposes and functions, their elements and composition and their potential values in information retrieval. Different disciplines or discourse communities develop special kinds of documents as adaptations to their specific needs. Examples of unique kinds of documents are:</p><p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>in music: sheets of music;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in geography: maps and atlases;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in law: codes; bodies of law;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in astronomy: almanacs;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in genealogy: pedigrees and genealogical trees; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>in psychology: tests.</p></list-item></list></p><p>The way common document types are used varies from domain to domain. For example, the relative importance of books and journals and whether proceedings are regarded as formal publications or not are different from one discipline to another. Although a high degree of standardization exists in modern scientific articles, the form of the articles also reflects both the specific needs of different domains and the methodologically and epistemologically different norms (as well as technological, economic and other kinds of influences).</p><p>The form of a document, e.g. the form of a scientific article, is perhaps regarded as something trivial and is usually regarded as something which has an ideal form, which is final in its historical development, can be standardised and is independent of content and of epistemological issues. “Publication manuals” exist in most academic disciplines (e.g. American Psychological Association, 1994). They describe in great detail the way articles should be designed. Such manuals have a highly technical and normative character, but they are usually not reflexive concerning their suggestions in the sense that they do not discuss publication form as an epistemological problem.</p><p>Emerging research is beginning to change this view of publication form. This new research mostly uses social constructivism and related theories as the epistemological point of departure. The social constructivistic theory of semantics implies that objects are “social constructs” and meanings are constructed in social discourse (most often in ways that are unconscious for the agents involved). Research articles – as well as other documents – are seen as social constructs and as ways of arguing (but never as the only way). One of the most influential writers on this topic is Bazerman (1988, 1995). He traces much of the rhetorical technique in scientific articles back to Isaac Newton(1642‐1727). Newton not only discovered the basic laws of macrophysics; but he also influenced scientific argumentation and publication for about 300 years. However, nothing remains unchanged, and Bazerman analyses changes in the form, length and structure of the scientific article in the twentieth century. Some of these changes are an increase in the number of references, the nature of cited works and the distribution of the references within the article. Bazerman’s work should be of direct interest to both bibliometric studies and to IR – or rather to a broadening of the perspective of these areas. Bazerman also shows how the publication manual in psychology reflects a behaviouristic point of view, which implies that a manual is not a neutral form but does reflect some epistemological norms, which can be analysed, discussed and questioned[6,7].</p><p>The work in composition studies (see Nystrand <italic>et al., </italic>1993) and in genre analysis (see Askehave and Swales, 2001; Malmkjær, 1995; Swales, 1986, 1990) is fruitful for IS not only on the concrete level, but also as an inspiration on the methodological level. The basic methodological inspiration is connected with the emphasis on the social and historical dimensions in communication. The concept “discourse community” is connected to this approach (see Swales, 1990, pp. 21‐32). Different document types (or “genres”) such as book reviews, sales letters, cross‐examinations etc. are basically understood from the point of view of communicative goals or purposes, which, however, has turned out to be a rather complex concept.</p><p>Conclusion: the study of document structures and genres has been relatively neglected in IS, but recent developments in full‐text retrieval have brought it to the forefront. The qualitative and quantitative studies of different genres in different communities may provide richer and more differentiated information services. As an approach to domain analysis it should be combined with other approaches, e.g:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>research on indexing and retrieving specialities;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>historical studies; and </p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies.</p></list-item></list></sec></sec><sec><title>Epistemological and critical studies</title><p>All kinds of research (indeed all kinds of behaviour) are governed by different kinds of assumptions, background knowledge, “theories” etc.:</p><disp-quote><p>Perhaps the greatest advance in understanding the nature of explanation made in the post‐positivist and post‐Kuhnian era is the general realization that methodologies, theories and explanations are related to each other via extra‐logical, historically variable constellations variously described as “background knowledge”, “traditions”, “paradigms”, “research programmes”, “fields” or “domains”. We can call all of these “framework concepts” (Lloyd, 1993, p. 32).</p></disp-quote><p>Such knowledge may form hierarchies of various kinds. In information science, for example, Hvari <italic>et al</italic>. (2001) distinguish between paradigms, approaches, methodologies and techniques, forming a hierarchy of four layers from the general to the specific. The use of such concepts varies, however, and paradigms and approaches are often used as synonyms. The important thing is that in every field of knowledge, and especially in the social sciences, different “paradigms”, “schools” or approaches can be identified. As shown in Hjørland (2002) such paradigms tend to develop their own journals and communication structure, and their information needs and relevance criteria are to a very high degree implied by the theoretical frame. The study of such paradigms seems important because they represent the most general principles and theories that can explain information behaviour that provides guidelines for evaluating information systems performance. It is my claim that this approach to domain analysis is the most basic approach and that all other approaches tend to become superficial if this perspective is not included. I regard this approach as related to what Saracevic (1975) called the subject knowledge view, about which he writes:</p><disp-quote><p>The <italic>subject knowledge view</italic> has not been formed as yet in any detail, although considerable material from which it can be formed exists. I wish to suggest that <italic>the subject knowledge view of relevance is fundamental to all other views of relevance</italic>, because subject knowledge is fundamental to communication of knowledge. In that lies the importance and urgency of the work on that view (Saracevic, 1975, p. 333, emphases in original).</p></disp-quote><p>Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and epistemologies are theories or approaches to knowledge. Epistemology is not limited to the discipline of philosophy but is also influenced by scientists (e.g. Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr). Epistemology can be seen as the generalisation and interpretation of collected scientific experience. Therefore, theories of epistemology are the most fundamental theories of relevance, and any theoretical question in information science is in the end based on epistemological assumptions. Epistemological studies are studies that examine the explicit or implicit assumptions behind research traditions. Such assumptions are often linked to ontological assumptions concerning the object under study. They represent an analysis of the approaches or paradigms in research fields. In information science, Hjørland (1991, 1997) has, for example, analysed the individualistic assumptions in the cognitive research programme, pointed to its problems and suggested alternatives based on sociological perspectives.</p><p>Epistemological studies of knowledge domains are often combined with historical studies. This includes studies of how works have been received (reception studies, in particular those of a more historical and social nature as opposed to reception studies of a more psychological nature). A study of how, for example, Kuhn’s <italic>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</italic> has been received and used in, for example, social sciences is an example of this kind of reception studies. A main theorist on this kind of reception studies is Jauss (1987).</p><p>Studies of this kind are also valuable for the interpretation of bibliometric patterns because the researchers working under a specific approach have a very high tendency to cite other researchers sharing the same basic assumptions and world view (Hjørland, 2002). Epistemological studies can on the other hand also benefit from bibliometric studies (cf. JASIST forthcoming special issue on the visualization of scientific paradigms). There is thus mutual interaction.</p><p>There exist a great number of epistemological or metatheoretical positions, so the picture is very difficult to overview. In the social sciences the already mentioned title by Wallerstein (1996) is an epistemological and critical analysis of the classification of the social sciences. In psychology Kurt Danziger (e.g. 1990, 1997) is an important figure. In LIS authors such as Day (2001) and Bernd Frohmann (1990, 1994) can be mentioned. Also the interdisciplinary approaches known as women’s studies and social constructivism can be seen as critical epistemological positions. In Hjørland (1998a) I have made an epistemological and critical study of the field of psychology. Studies of this kind can sometimes provide hard evidence that the most dominating traditions can be based on problematic assumptions. </p><p>For many purposes I find it fruitful to classify epistemological positions in five broad categories:</p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>(1) empirism/positivism;</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>(2) rationalism;</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>(3) historism/hermeneutics/phenomenology;</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>(4) pragmatism/functionalism/Marxism/feminism;</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p>(5) eclecticism, postmodernism and scepticism.</p></list-item></list><p>These positions are generalisations of existing epistemologies, and they represent ideal types which do not exist in pure form. They form the most general level of the description of framework theories and thus the most general level of explaining relevance and information behaviour. If IS should be taken seriously, it should be able to explain information phenomena, and for this purpose epistemological studies are important.</p><p>Conclusion: epistemological and critical studies of knowledge domains provide knowledge about the foundations of the domains and critical evaluations of their knowledge claims. They provide guidelines for selection, organisation and retrieval of information and provide the highest level of generality about information needs and relevance criteria that can be obtained. All other approaches to domain analysis become superficial if epistemology is neglected. For example, guides to information sources in the social sciences should be evaluated by their ability to inform users about different views in their respective fields. An information guide that only contains information sources representing one paradigm without making this clear deprives the user of making his own choices. This approach has hitherto been much neglected, and very few books in LIS are based on substantial philosophical knowledge. Budd (2001) is, however, one important text, which surveys many of these problems in a qualified way. It may be a part of an increasing awareness of the importance of epistemology in LIS.</p></sec><sec><title>Terminological studies, language for special purpose (LSP), database semantics and discourse studies</title><p>Information professionals have always had an intimate relationship with problems related to terminology, semantic relationships and similar problems of a linguistic nature. Thesaurus construction, problems related to the retrieval efficiency of controlled as well as natural language etc. are obvious examples of this relationship. In chemistry, for example, there is a close relation between works on indexing principles and works on standardization of chemical nomenclature (American Chemical Society, 1992). It is also a natural job for scientific and technical libraries and information centres to support and join activities related to the development of terminology as well as the translation of scientific documents. Thus the Technological Library of Denmark has published bibliographies of dictionaries and similar kinds of documents of relevance for translation (Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek, 1975, 1981).</p><p>What kind of theory can guide the information scientist in exploring the language of a given domain? It is natural first to turn to linguistics. In the history of information science there has been some connection with linguistics (for example, Spark Jones and Kay, 1973). When information science was established as a research discipline there was a narrow connection between research in machine translation and information retrieval. Although natural language processing (NLP) has always been important in IS, these areas seem to have drifted somewhat apart. Despite important exceptions it is my impression that Liddy (1998) is right when she states: “It makes common sense for linguistic processing to be used in the task of text retrieval, given that users’ queries are linguistic expressions, and the relevant documents that the system is attempting to retrieve are also linguistic objects. While this may seem obvious today, it has not always been the case”.</p><sec><title>Cross disciplinary differences in LSP</title><p>In chemistry the amount of work done on terminology and the principles governing this work seem impressive and more “realistic” than problems related to the terminology of, for example, the social sciences. In chemistry, the principles of nomenclature are described and highly standardized by organisations such as the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). This organisation has developed a system of principles or recommendations for the naming of chemical elements and compounds. (My reference is Andersen <italic>et al.,</italic> 1996.) Chemical names constructed on the basis of components based on those recommendations are termed systematic names. These principles are realistic by reflecting the structures of the chemical substances themselves. In chemistry, we have also trivial names which do not reflect the composition of the substance, but, for example, its origin. Trade names for chemicals form a well‐know subclass of trivial names (e.g. “Mediterranean salt”). To my knowledge, there is little disagreement in chemistry about the main goal of developing standards for systematic names and of using these principles as far as possible in information retrieval systems.</p><p>In social sciences, the situation seems very different. Although there are organisations comparable to the American Chemical Society which develop databases and thesauri for social sciences, the problems seem different. Organisations such as the American Psychological Association actually publish impressive databases (like PsycINFO) and corresponding thesauri. There are, however, no international guidelines for psychological terminology and no real research efforts either. Although many psychological dictionaries are published and often make very good money for the publishers they often seem to be a kind of potboiler for professors or professionals in the field. Very seldom scholarly works about the nature of psychological/social scientific language are published by competent researchers in the field (one exception is Danziger, 1997). There is no indication of a relation between works about psychological language and the work done by the staff of PsycINFO. Linguistic works on psychological language such as the one by Busch‐Lauer (1991) are also exceptional.</p><p>The very idea of constructing a psychological/social scientific vocabulary reflecting a psychological or social reality in the same way that the chemical vocabulary reflects the composition of chemical substances seems problematic. Different schools of psychology such as behaviourism, cognitivism, neuroscience, psychoanalysis and activity theory have developed different vocabularies of psychology. Efforts towards standardization may therefore suppress certain viewpoints at the expense of other viewpoints, and the very idea of constructing one standardized language reflecting one psychological reality seems “positivist”. Qualified critics may be able to show that the alleged neutrality and objectivity of languages are indeed biased by the theoretical views of the positivist researchers. In contrast to other epistemologies positivism does not admit its theoretical influences, but claims objectivity. Critics of positivism, e.g. Harding (1998), do not subscribe to relativity or the giving up of objectivity but claim that a stronger kind of objectivity may be developed by facing the fact that science is influenced by human beings with different kinds of experience and background knowledge.</p><p>Legal studies are a discipline in which civil service style (or “officialese”) is a rather well‐known concept, and much more has been written about this than about the languages of other social sciences (e.g. von Eyben, 1989). Legal language is often accused of being unnecessarily difficult for lay people to understand, and efforts are made in order to reduce this problem. The problems addressed in relation to legal language seem thus to be different from the problems discussed above in both chemistry and psychology.</p></sec><sec><title>Approaches to language and terminology</title><p>There may be different reasons for the relative lack of contact between IS and linguistics. In my opinion a major reason is possibly connected to core theoretical problems within linguistics itself. Linguists have been very reluctant to consider sublanguages (or languages for special purposes, LSP) proper languages and objects for study. There are, for example, very few journals devoted to this area[8].</p><p>The field consists of some interrelated subdisciplines. The study of terminology (e.g. Cabré (1998) and Somers (1996)); specialized lexicography (the study of subject dictionaries; e.g. Bergenholtz <italic>et al</italic>. (1995), semantics and specialized languages (e.g. Inchaurralde (1994)) and has relations to genre studies Berkenkotte and Huckin (1995).</p><p>The term sublanguage was introduced by Harris (1968, p. 152) who used the term for a portion of natural language differing from other portions of the same language syntactically and/or lexically. Hirschman and Sager changed the definition:</p><disp-quote><p>[A sublanguage is] the particular language used in a body of texts dealing with a circumscribed subject area (often reports or articles of a technical speciality or science subfield), in which the authors of the documents share a common vocabulary and common habits of word usage (Hirschman and Sager, 1982, p. 28).</p></disp-quote><p>There have been sublanguage approaches applied to machine translation (MT) and NLP by, e.g. Grishman and Kittredge (1986); Kittredge and Lehrberger (1982), and Luckardt (1984). Unfortunately they did not lead to any kind of breakthrough, thus this approach just obtained a status as “potentially useful” (cf. Luckhardt, 1998). </p><p>Research in LSP seems to be more connected to research associated with business schools (for the education of translators), IS (information retrieval, IR), machine translation (MT) and NLP rather than to pure linguistic departments. Linguists may lack sufficient subject knowledge to engage themselves in this kind of research or they may have been led by theoretical views that have favoured other approaches. My feeling is that the structural linguistics of, for example, Noam Chomsky, blocked the interest in LSP. This view is supported by authorities in linguistics:</p><disp-quote><p>My major finding has consistently been that formalism has evaded problems or else offered rigid and dogmatic solutions that apply divide‐and‐conquer methods to pick out small issues, whereas functionalism has confronted problems and striven to formulate flexible and negotiable solutions emphasising the unity of language and applying large issues. Yet formalism has enjoyed unearned support from “classical” notions of science (generality, abstractness, rigour, etc.) and from its grand though empty promise to deliver up “language” as a timeless, “well‐defined object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts”. The outcome has been an oddly static history of projects that in effect aspire to replace dynamic real language with a static ideal language based upon technical fictions (“ideal speaker‐hearer”, “homogeneous speech‐community”, “language acquisition device” etc. etc.), thereby excusing linguists from the painstaking fieldwork, documentation, and application – all theory and no practice. Conversely, functionalism has been obliged to subsist as a counter‐history of projects that have naturally appeared diffuse and problematic precisely because they apply multiple and multi‐functional views to real human language in both theory and practice. Of course, many linguists would hardly welcome my conclusions that “mainstream linguistics” and the figures like Saussure and Chomsky we have been monumentalising for so long have been seriously misguided in their projects to make linguistics into a formal science by disconnecting language from its discursive, cognitive, and social functions; and that these projects should now be consigned to the archives of history (de Beaugrande, 1997; references omitted).</p></disp-quote><p>It is my expectation, however, that pragmatic, functional, sociolinguist or discourse analytic approaches (e.g. M. A. K. Halliday) may help to put LSP into the core of linguistics and lead to some kind of breakthrough[9]. The recent pragmatic turn in linguistics may thus be very welcome from the perspective of IS. Gärdenfors (1999) describes this in the following way:</p><disp-quote><p>In early cognitive science the role of culture and society in cognition was marginalized. For Chomsky and his followers, individuals are Turing machines that process syntactic structures according to a partly innate system of grammatical rules. Questions concerning the meaning of the words, let alone problems related to the use of language in communication, were seen as not properly belonging to a cognitive theory of linguistics. A new pragmatic tradition turned the classic cognitive approach upside down. Human actions and activities are here seen as the most basic entities; pragmatics consists of the rules for linguistic actions; semantics is conventionalized pragmatics; and finally, syntax adds grammatical markers to help disambiguate when the context does not suffice to do so.</p></disp-quote><p>One relevant theory about LSP is the sociolinguistic theory described by Ammon (1977). He finds that different LSPs can vary in their distance to the common language. According to his view this distance depends on the distance between the working sphere where it is used and the sphere that is common for the whole society, which is the sphere of consumption. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2780580404002">Table I</xref> shows how he explains the relative difficulties of different LSPs as a function of their distance from the sphere of consumption.</p><p>The fundamental principles of LSP are determined on the one hand by different groups’ different communicative needs, and on the other hand by an economic principle, which reduces the use of redundant information. In a firm the purchasing department must have more precise terms for tools than the workers who manufacture the goods. The term tongs for spot weld could be used by the people in the purchasing department, while just tongs would more likely be used by the workers using it. According to Ammon all scientists share a general level of scientific language (and knowledge). And highly specialized scientists (e.g. food chemists) have a higher need to communicate with other chemists than to communicate internally, while their vocabulary is much broader than their speciality.</p><p>Ammon’s theory is relevant for IS because it can help explain terminological problems and provide guidelines for working with thesauri and subject terminology. There is, however, an even deeper cause. Because information seekers need terminology, and because there is a connection between linguistic knowledge and substantial knowledge, such a theory might help explain problems in cross‐disciplinary information seeking. It might explain which knowledge and which terminology are not part of normal persons’ repertoire. It should, however, only be considered a first step towards a more empirically and theoretically developed approach.</p></sec><sec><title>LSP in information science</title><p>As an approach in IS sublanguages have mainly been studied very recently by a few dedicated scientists, such as Bonzi (1990); Haas (1996, 1997); Haas and He (1993); Losee and Haas (1995) and Wiberly (1983). The most impressive projects in this area seem to be the ones on the Unified Medical Language System (Bodenreider annd Bean, 2001). Also the project led by Professor Buckland in the School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley has been productive. A number of technical reports and other papers have been published due to this initiative, including: Buckland (1999, 2000) Buckland <italic>et al.</italic> (1999, 2000, 2001); Kim (1998, 2000) and Petras (2000). This recent focus on terminology in IS seems very promising from a domain analytic point of view.</p><p>My own approach to LSP and database semantics in IS has so far been of a theoretical nature and is connected to four main assumptions:</p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>(1) Signs and their meaning are formed by social groups primarily as part of the social division of labour in society. Such discourse communities may be very different in size and structure. A large number of groups may develop symbol systems and share knowledge, which they do not share with the rest of society. In both science and in the humanities there may be a considerable degree of common knowledge and shared meaning. Various specialised groups may be more or less removed from the general language as explained by Ammon. They may also be more or less removed from each other because of different levels of mutual dependency as explained by Whitley (2000). The symbol systems, media, knowledge and meaning develop in a historical process. This development reflects both adaptations to discoveries (internal developments) and adaptations to external conditions. It should be possible to develop the concept of the semantic distances as investigated by Brooks (1995, 1998) and to consider distances between groups and between queries and document representations.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>(2) Different communities develop specific document types of more or less different compositions. All elements in those documents are potential subject access points in electronic retrieval (Hjørland and Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). The information value of a specific access point is relative to the conventions used in a specific domain or tradition. </p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>(3) The above mentioned discursive or epistemic communities are always influenced by various epistemological norms and trends, which also influence the social construction of symbolic systems, media, knowledge, meaning and semantic distances. Such epistemologies are probably the most general explanatory models available. So far extremely little research has been done relating sublanguages to epistemology or science studies (Hjørland, 1998c, 2002; Skiba, 1998).</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>(4) When documents are merged in databases information about implicit meanings from the prior contexts are lost. The larger the degree of merging, the greater also the loss of implicit information. Systems for knowledge organisation and IR should be developed to cope with this loss of implicit information by making it explicit (database semantics). (See also Hjørland (1998c) and Maniez (1997).)</p></list-item></list><p>Conclusion: language and terminology are very important objects for IS because they affect our thinking and thus the questions we put to databases as well as the texts we search. IS needs a functional/pragmatic basis for studying LSP. Terminology as an approach to domain studies in IS should be combined with:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>bibliometrical studies;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>historical studies; and </p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>epistemological and critical studies.</p></list-item></list></sec></sec><sec><title>Structures and institutions in scientific communication</title><p>A given discipline can be modelled as a system of institutions, services and primary, secondary and tertiary information sources intermediating between knowledge producers and knowledge users[10]. In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2780580404003">Figure 2</xref> the original UNISIST model is modified by a dashed circle indicating a specific domain of knowledge which imports information from other domains and exports information to other domains as well as to the general public. The model is going to be presented and discussed in more detail in a work in progress made in cooperation with Jack Andersen and Trine Fjord Søndergaard. </p><p>Based on Figure 2, I suggest the following main categories of literature: primary, secondary and tertiary sources (from UNISIST). This should be supplemented with source literature (a kind of special input especially known in history and literary sciences, dictionaries (which can be classified as either secondary or tertiary literature), incidental information sources (a concept borrowed from Webb, 1986), and finally popularisations and textbooks, which have the function to inform people outside the domain or to teach people to become professionals in the field. These seven broad categories of documents cover in my opinion most kinds of documents (sometimes termed “genres”) associated with scientific, social scientific, and humanistic domains. They do not, however, cover mass media, organisational communications, and broader communications connected to the public sphere. For such purposes broader models such as that provided by Habermas (1989) are needed.</p><p>One important thing about such models is that they represent a systems approach to scientific, professional and specialized communication. They regard the functions of single kinds of documents, institutions and services in relation to other existing documents, institutions and services and in relation to the overall goals and functions of the domain.</p><p>A lot of empirical questions arise from such models, for example: how do disciplines differ from each other? How are the systems of documents, institutions and services organized in domain X? Many differences are of course accidental, and thus less relevant to research. We should be interested in investigating whether there are essential causes that can explain structures and differences. Such essential causes may be related to the nature of different domains. The scientific communication system may, for example, be more formalized and structured compared to the humanities because there are more objective criteria for knowledge. It is much more difficult in the humanities to outsource information retrieval and reviewing, for which reason the development of specialized database services, reviews etc. should be expected to be less specialized in relation to the production of primary literature.</p><p>Many quantitative and qualitative data are needed to map such a structure in a precise way. Who are the producers? How much do they publish and communicate, and how is this communication distributed in different channels? How is the communication filtered and influenced by different media? What is the coverage both quantitatively and qualitatively in different databases and libraries? What kind of epistemic norms guide the selection process? How interdisciplinary are the different agents and institutions, and what kinds of bias can be involved by disciplinary influences? What kind of national or geographical traditions, cultural norms and economic influences are at play (e.g. differences between for‐profit and non‐profit organizations)?</p><p>The study of communication both internal in domains and external between domains may be inspired by different kinds of sociological theory, including discourse analysis, systems theory or theory of self‐organisation such as Leydesdorff (2001). An original approach studying disciplines from an organisational perspective is provided by Whitley (2000). He considers task uncertainty and the degree of mutual dependence between scientists the basic causes structuring intellectual fields. This perspective may be useful also for IS. This last example also indicates how the study of structures and institutions in scientific communication is related to sociological points of view.</p><p>Conclusion: the study of the structures of the internal division of labor within domains and information exchange between domains provides useful information for the understanding of the function of specific kinds of documents and information services and for the construction of literature guides. This field is rich in questions that are open to, among other kinds of studies, bibliometrical investigations.</p></sec><sec><title>Scientific cognition, expert knowledge and artificial intelligence (AI)</title><p>Domain analysis is also a concept used in computer science. Prieto‐Diaz (1990) writes that domain analysis was introduced in the 1980s and is the process by which information used in developing systems in a domain is identified, captured and organised for the purpose of making it reusable when creating new systems. Domain analysis is a method used in systems development and software engineering (see e.g. Champeaux <italic>et al.</italic>, 1993). It focuses on capturing both the commonalities and the variability of systems within a domain to improve the efficiency of the development and maintenance of those systems. The results of the analysis, collectively referred to as a domain model, are captured for reuse in the future development of similar systems. There are several ways to define “domain”. For example, Berard (1992) gives two characterizations:</p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>(1) A collection of current and future (software) applications that share a set of common characteristics.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>(2) A well‐defined set of characteristics that accurately, narrowly and completely describe a family of problems for which computer application solutions are being, and will be, sought.</p></list-item></list><p>The founder of domain analysis in computer science is probably Neighbors (1980), who wrote: “The key to reusable software is captured in domain analysis in that it stresses the reusability of analysis and design, not code”.</p><p>The concepts of domain and domain analysis are thus narrower in computer science than the corresponding concepts in IS as discussed in this paper. There is obvious overlap in interests, especially connected to problems related to terminology and meaning. The basic view that a system or service should reflect a domain (as opposed to “mental structures”) is also the same. In LIS we are not, however, limited to considering only the development of computer‐based systems, but have a broader need to understand different disciplines and user groups from more humanistic and sociological perspectives.</p><p>Lykke Nielsen (2000a, b) discusses domain analysis as a method in thesaurus construction. I think that she may be using domain analysis in a sense different from mine. I have discussed her approach at some length in Hjørland (2002). To me, the data collection methods she used are known in AI as methods of knowledge elicitation (see Cooke, 1994). Her approach may, however, be considered a contribution to IS in other ways.</p><p>The fields of AI and cognitive sciences have historically been related to and dominated by individualistic rather than social ways of thinking. There are many different kinds of investigations into how researchers, experts and ordinary people think in and about different domains of knowledge. Some of this research is related to the attempt to build expert systems with artificial intelligence. Such research has mostly been done with a mechanical view of human thinking, neglecting the historical and cultural aspects of human cognition. An influential text with presentation of fundamental problems is Sowa (1999). Within psychology Hoffman (1992) introduces research about human expertise.</p><p>A tendency to broaden this cognitive perspective and make it more social seems to be developing. Within AI, Timpka (1995) is doing research on clinical cognition. Under the label “cognition’s context” he introduces sociological perspectives on cognition. Such sociological perspectives seem to be more relevant for domain analysis compared with traditional individualistic perspectives. However, we should always keep in mind that the goals of LIS are not the same as the goals of AI. In LIS a central goal is to provide users with information which can help evaluate the validity of different knowledge claims. To help the user establish his own view on some issue based on studies of all available arguments is extremely important in LIS. This is very different from constructing a system performing certain knowledge based tasks, which is the goal of research in AI. Therefore, other approaches to expert cognition may be more relevant.</p><p>An example of a sociological study of cognition is Andersen (1999), who studied the political attitudes and cognitive convictions among Danish social science researchers. That is, he studied the relation between individual (micro) processes and collective (macro) processes and pointed out the hermeneutical relation between these levels. This is an example of a study which may be less relevant for AI, but in my opinion is relevant for LIS.</p><p>Conclusion: various forms of domain analysis have been carried out in computer science and related fields. They offer useful techniques, which may supplement other approaches to domain analysis in IS. Dominating tendencies have, however, been guided by theories of cognition which have neglected the social, cultural and historical nature of cognitive processes. Also the aim of LIS may be different from the aim of computer science. IS should be more open to alternative views, more reflective and meta‐oriented and demonstrate gaps and uncertainties in knowledge to users. This is very different from making, for example, an expert system that performs optimally by reflecting some generalized cognitive models.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>The conclusions drawn for the 11 approaches are:</p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>(1) Literature guides organise information sources in a domain according to types and functions served. They emphasize idiographic descriptions of information sources and descriptions of how the sources supplement each other, often in a kind of systems perspective. </p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>(2) Special classifications and thesauri (especially the facet‐based approaches) organise the logical structures of categories and concepts in a domain as well as the semantic relations between the concepts.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>(3) Indexing and retrieving specialities organise single documents or collections in order to optimise the retrivability and visibility of their specific “epistemological potentials”.</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>(4) Empirical user studies may organise domains according to preferences or behaviour or mental models of their users.</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p>(5) Bibliometric studies organise sociological patterns of explicit recognition between individual documents.</p></list-item><list-item><label>6. </label><p>(6) Historical studies organise traditions, paradigms as well as documents and forms of expression and their mutual influences.</p></list-item><list-item><label>7. </label><p>(7) Document and genre studies reveal the organisation and structure of different kinds of documents in a domain.</p></list-item><list-item><label>8. </label><p>(8) Epistemological and critical studies organise the knowledge of a domain in “paradigms” according to their basic assumptions about knowledge and reality.</p></list-item><list-item><label>9. </label><p>(9) Terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes) and discourse studies organise words, texts and utterances in a domain according to semantic and pragmatic criteria.</p></list-item><list-item><label>10. </label><p>(10) Studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication organise the major actors and institutions according to the internal division of labour in the domain.</p></list-item><list-item><label>11. </label><p>(11) Domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence provides mental models of a domain or methods for knowledge elicitation in order to produce expert systems.</p></list-item></list><p>Together these 11 approaches form a perspective that is unique for information science. It should also be obvious that this perspective offers practically and theoretically relevant investigations. Research in information science combining several of the above mentioned approaches will, in my view, strengthen the identity of IS and strengthen the relationship between research and practice in IS. Because this approach has been implicit in much earlier work, it should make the field more coherent with its own history and provide a deeper and more satisfactory stock of knowledge. It may also provide a better interdisciplinary contact and exchange for fields like sociology, linguistics and philosophy. It would, in my opinion, be an appropriate goal for IS to develop these 11 approaches (and possibly new ones) further, which would mean strengthening general information science. It would also be an appropriate goal to produce domain analytic journals, books and educational programs in all areas of knowledge, which would mean strengthening specialised IS. As is the case in other fields like translation and education, the specialised field of IS may be able to occupy more people than the general field.</p></sec><sec><title>Notes</title><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>So for the following titles have been published: Towery (1998), <italic>History</italic>; Wyman (1999) Medicine; and Kendrick and Zafran (2001), <italic>Law</italic>.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>In addition to the already cited papers on interpreting bibliometric analysis the following should also be mentioned: Aksnes <italic>et al</italic>. (2000), MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1989), Sandison (1989), Seglen (1992, 1994, 1996a, b, 1997a, b, 1998) and Seglen and Aksnes (2000).</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>Reiss (2000) is a handbook of IA.</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>Beghtol (2001) is a recent introduction to the genre concept in IS. Procter <italic>et al.</italic> (1998) study genres in support of collaborative information retrieval in the virtual library. Davidson (2000) is an example of genre analysis in a specific domain (clinical information systems).</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p>An example of the use of information structures in linguistics is Lambrecht (1996).</p></list-item><list-item><label>6. </label><p>In 1995‐96 was thus a rather intensive debate in <italic>American Psychologist</italic> about the publication manual in this field, e.g. Madigan <italic>et al. </italic>(1995, 1996).</p></list-item><list-item><label>7. </label><p>Biological genres have been studied by Myers (1990, 1991).</p></list-item><list-item><label>8. </label><p>The few journals include <italic>Fachsprache</italic> and <italic>Nordisk tidsskrift for fagsprog og terminology/Nordic Journal of LSP and Terminology</italic>.</p></list-item><list-item><label>9. </label><p>Most research in this field seems to be of German origin. Hoffmann <italic>et al.</italic> (1997) have published the major handbook in this field: <italic>Languages for Special Purposes: An International Handbook of Special Languages and Terminology Research</italic>. Other books with a German origin include: Albrecht and Baum (1992); Dietz (1995); Grindsted and Wagner (1992); Gopferich (1995); von Hahn (1981); Kretzenbacher (1990); Schaeder and Bergenholtz (1994); Schröder (1991); Timm (1992) and Wendt (1997).</p></list-item><list-item><label>10. </label><p>See, for example, Unisist (1971, p. 26) or Garvey and Griffith (1972, p. 127). Although those specific models need to be updated, they provide a very fruitful tool in helping to raise a long range of empirical questions which need to be answered.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_2780580404001"><label><bold>Figure 1.<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Influential authors in library and information science 1986‐1996</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="2780580404001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_2780580404002"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x></bold></label><graphic xlink:href="2780580404002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_2780580404003"><label><bold>Figure 2.<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Institutions, actors and documentary structures in a discipline</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="2780580404003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Aitchison</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Bliss class R: politics and public administration: a review</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Bliss Classification Bulletin</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>37</volume>, pp. <fpage>10</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>23</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Aitchison</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gilchrist</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bawden</surname>, <given-names>D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Thesaurus Construction and Use: A Practical Manual</italic></source>, <edition>4th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>ASLIB</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Aksnes</surname>, <given-names>D.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Olsen</surname>, <given-names>T.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of microbiology: a Norwegian case study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scientometrics</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 49</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>7</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Albrecht</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Baum</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>Fachsprache und Terminologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 14, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Allen</surname>, <given-names>F.R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1993</year>), “<article-title><italic>Essential business reference sources: a survey of seven bibliographic guidebooks</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>RQ</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>33</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>77</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>American Chemical Society</string-name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Naming and indexing of chemical substances for chemical abstracts, appendix IV</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Chemical Abstracts Index Guide</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society (or later editions), Columbus, OH</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ammon</surname>, <given-names>U</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1977</year>), <source><italic>Indføring i sociolingvistik</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Gyldendal, Copenhagen</publisher-loc> (translated from Probleme der Soziolinguistik, Niemeyer, Tübingen: (Germanistische Arbeitshefte 15) <edition>2nd ed</edition>..)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>American Psychological Association</string-name></person-group> (<year>1963‐1969</year>), <source><italic>Reports of the American Psychological Association´s Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1‐3</volume>, <publisher-loc>American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</publisher-loc> </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>American Psychological Association</string-name></person-group> (<year>1969‐1971</year>), <source><italic>National Information System for Psychology (NISP)</italic></source>, <article-title><italic>Reports No. 1‐16</italic></article-title>, <publisher-loc>American Psychological Association, Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>American Psychological Association</string-name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>), <source><italic>Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association</italic></source>, <edition>4th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>APA</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Andersen</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Political attitudes and cognitive convictions among Danish social science researchers</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scientometrics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>46</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>87</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>108</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Andersen</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Influence and reputation in the social sciences – how much do researchers agree?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>56</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>674</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>92</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Andersen</surname>, <given-names>P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. <italic>et al.</italic> (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Kemisk ordbog</italic></source>, (<italic>Chemical Dictionary</italic>), <publisher-loc>Teknisk forlag, Copenhagen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anson</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Woodward</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>A survey of legal research guides</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Law Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>84</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>543</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>57</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Askehave</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Swales</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Genre identification and communicative purpose: a problem and a possible solution’</italic></article-title>’, <source><italic>Applied Linguistics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>195</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>212</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Balay</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Carrington</surname>, <given-names>V.F</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Martin</surname>, <given-names>M.S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Guide to Reference Books</italic></source>, <edition>11th ed</edition>., <publisher-loc>American Library Association, Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bates</surname>, <given-names>M.J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1987</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information: the last variable</italic></article-title>”, in <source><italic>Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, 24</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>American Society for Information Science, Medford, NJ</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>6</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>10</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bates</surname>, <given-names>M.J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Indexing and access for digital libraries and the Internet: human, database, and domain factors</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>49</volume> No. <issue>13</issue>, pp. <fpage>1185</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>205</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bazerman</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1985</year>), “<article-title><italic>Physicists reading physics. Schema‐laden purposes and purpose‐laden schema</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Written Communication</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>23</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bazerman</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1988</year>), <source><italic>Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science</italic></source>, <publisher-name>The University of Wisconsin Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Madison, WI</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Beghtol</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>The concept of genre and its characteristics</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>27</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec-01/Bulletin/Aug-99/index.html">www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec‐01/Bulletin/Aug‐99/index.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Berard</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>Essays in Object‐oriented Software Engineering</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Prentice‐Hall</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Englewood Cliffs, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bergenholtz</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Tarp</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and<person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name> <surname>Duva</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1995</year>), <source><italic>Manual of Specialised Lexicography; The Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries</italic></source>, J. <publisher-loc>Benjamins (Benjamins Translation Library, , Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA</publisher-loc>, Vol. <volume>12</volume>). </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Berkenkotter</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huckin</surname>, <given-names>T.N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), <source><italic>Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication; Cognition, Culture, Power</italic></source>, <publisher-name>L. Erlbaum Associates</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Hillsdale, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bernal</surname>, <given-names>J.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1948</year>), “<article-title><italic>Preliminary analysis of pilot questionnaire on the use of scientific literature, in Royal Society [Great Britain]</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Royal Society Scientific Information Conference: Report and Papers</italic></source> Submitted, 21 June‐2 July, <publisher-loc>Royal Society, London</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>589</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>637</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bertram</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1974</year>), “<article-title><italic>Library pathfinders. American Society for Information Science</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>McBurney</surname>, <given-names>M.B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.), <source><italic>Western Canada Chapter: Proceedings 6th Annual Meeting</italic></source>, Saskatoon, 25‐27 September, <publisher-loc>University of Alberta Library, Alberta</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>99</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>104</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bland</surname>, <given-names>R.N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Toward the catalog as a tutorial guide to the literature</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>11</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>71</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>82</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bodenreider</surname>, <given-names>O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bean</surname>, <given-names>C.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Relationships among knowledge structures: vocabulary Integration within a subject domain</italic></article-title> (on the unified medical language system), in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bean</surname>, <given-names>C.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds), <source><italic>Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bonzi</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Syntactic patterns in scientific sublanguages: a study of four disciplines</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>41</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>121</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>31</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bottle</surname>, <given-names>R.T</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information science’</italic></article-title>’, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Feather</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sturges</surname>, <given-names>P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds), <source><italic>International Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>212</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bowden</surname>, <given-names>M.E</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Hahn</surname>, <given-names>T.B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Williams</surname>, <given-names>R.V</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems</italic></source>, published for the <publisher-loc>American Society for Information Science and Technology and the Chemical Heritage Foundation ASIS Monograph Series</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.chemheritage.org/HistoricalServices/ASIS_documents/ASIS98_main.htm">www.chemheritage.org/HistoricalServices/ASIS_documents/ASIS98_main.htm</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bowker</surname>, <given-names>G.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Star</surname>, <given-names>S.L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Sorting Things out: Classification and Its Consequences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>The MIT Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>, partly available at: weber.ucsd.edu/∼gbowker/classification/</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brittain</surname>, <given-names>J.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1970</year>), <source><italic>Information and Its Users: A Review with Special Reference to the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Bath University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Bath</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brooks</surname>, <given-names>T.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Topical subject expertise and the semantic distance model of relevance assessment</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>51</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>370</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>87</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brooks</surname>, <given-names>T.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>The semantic distance model of relevance assessment</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of ASIS, 25‐28 October</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Information Access in the Global Information Economy, Pittsburgh, PA</publisher-loc>, Vol. <volume>35</volume>, pp. <fpage>33</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>44</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bryant</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Discovery and Decision: Exploring the Methaphysics and Epistemology of Scientific Classification</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Fairleigh Dickinson University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Fairleigh, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Homepage. Courses, Infosys 290: 1: Indexing and vocabulary, Spring 1998 Schedule</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is290-1/s98/schedule.html">http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is290‐1/s98/schedule.html</ext-link> (accessed 31 December 2001).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Vocabulary as a central concept in library and information science</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name>Arpanac</string-name></person-group> <italic>et al</italic>. (Eds), <source><italic>Digital Libraries: Interdisciplinary Concepts, Challenges, and Opportunities, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science CoLIS3, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 23‐26 May 1999</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Lokve, Zagbred.</publisher-loc> </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>An Analysis of the Effects on Searching of the Use Three Subdomain Entry Vocabularies: Technical Note</italic></source>, <source><italic>School of Information Management & Systems, UC Berkeley. Search Support for Unfamiliar Metadata Project</italic></source>, (<edition>1st ed</edition>., 1999), available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/domain.html">http://metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/domain.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>H.‐M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lam</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Larson</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barbara Norgard</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Purat</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Mapping Entry Vocabulary to Unfamiliar Metadata Vocabularies. D‐Lib Magazine 5</italic></source>, No. <issue>1</issue>, January, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/buckland/01buckland.html">http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/buckland/01buckland.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M.K</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gebbie</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Norgard</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Variation by subdomain in indexes to knowledge organization systems</italic></article-title>”, paper for <publisher-loc>International Society for Knowledge Organization, ISKO6, Toronto</publisher-loc>, July, available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/iskopaper.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Buckland</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jiang</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Petras</surname>, <given-names>V</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Domain‐based indexes: indexing for communities of users</italic></article-title>”, in <source><italic>3e Congrès du Chapitre Français de L’ISKO, 506 Juillet 2001. Filtrage et Résumé Informatique de l’Information sur les Réseaux</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Université Nanterre Paris X, Paris</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>181</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Budd</surname>, <given-names>J.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science: A Philosophical Framework</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Scarecrow Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Lanham, MD</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b44"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Busch‐Lauer</surname>, <given-names>I.‐A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1991)</year>, <source><italic>Englische Fachtexte in der padagogischen Psychologie; eine linguistische Analyse</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Leipziger Fachsprachen‐Studien. Bd. 2, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main and New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b45"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cabré</surname>, <given-names>M.T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Terminology; Theory, Methods and Applications</italic></source>, <publisher-name>John Benjamins</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Amsterdam</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Champeaux</surname>, <given-names>D</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>de Lea</surname>, <given-names>D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Faure</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1993</year>), <source><italic>Object‐Oriented System Development</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Addison Wesley</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Reading, MA</publisher-loc>, available at: g.oswego.edu/dl/oosdw3/ch13.html#berard</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Colby</surname>, <given-names>S.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Normore</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Watson</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barton</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kalfatovic</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Pathfinders</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>OCLC Newsletter</italic></source>, No. <issue>252</issue>, July/August, pp. <fpage>37</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>41</lpage>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.pais.org/news/corc.stm">www.pais.org/news/corc.stm</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cooke</surname>, <given-names>N.J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies</italic></source> , Vol. <volume>41</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>801</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>49</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cronin</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1984</year>), <source><italic>The Citation Process, The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Taylor Graham Publishing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b50"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cronin</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Snyder</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Atkins</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>53</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>263</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b51"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek</string-name></person-group> (<year>1975, 1981</year>), <source><italic>Dansk fagterminologi [1‐2]. Bibliografi over ordbøger, håndbøger m.m. til brug ved oversættelsesarbejdet</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Danish technical, scientific, and professional terms, Danmarks tekniske Bibliotek, Lyngby</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b52"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Danziger</surname>, <given-names>K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Constructing the Subject. Historical Origins of Psychological Research</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b53"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Danziger</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Naming the Mind. How Psychology Found its Language</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b54"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Davenport</surname>, <given-names>N.A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vajs</surname>, <given-names>K.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1987</year>), “<article-title><italic>Research guides in a public policy environment’</italic></article-title>’, <source><italic>Reference Librarian</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume>, pp. <fpage>55</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>70</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b55"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Davidson</surname>, <given-names>E.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Analyzing genre of organizational communication in clinical information systems</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Technology and People</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>196</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>209.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b56"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Day</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Walsh</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Walford’s Guide to Reference Material. Vol. 2. Social and Historical Sciences, Philosophy and Religion</italic></source>, <edition>8th ed</edition>., <publisher-name>Library Association Publishing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b57"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Day</surname>, <given-names>R.E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>The Modern Invention of Information: Discourse, History, and Power</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Southern Illinois University Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b58"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>de Beaugrande</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>On history and historicity in modern linguistics. Formalism versus functionalism revisited 1</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Functions of Language</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>169</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>213</lpage>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.beaugrande.com/">www.beaugrande.com/</ext-link>, (accessed 1 January 2002).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b59"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dervin</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>On studying information seeking methodologically: the implications of connecting metatheory to method</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Processing and Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume>, pp. <fpage>727</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b60"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dietz</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), <source><italic>Titel wissenschaftlicher Texte</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 26, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b61"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Foskett</surname>, <given-names>D.J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1974</year>), <source><italic>Classification and Indexing in the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., <publisher-name>Butterworths</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b62"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Foucault</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1970</year>), <source><italic>The Order of Things; An Archaeology of the Human Sciences </italic></source>(translated from <source><italic>Les Mots et les Choses: Une Archeologie des Sciences Humaines</italic></source>, Gallimard, Paris, 1966), <publisher-name>Tavistock Publications</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b63"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Foucault</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1972)</year>, <source><italic>The Archaeology of Knowledge,</italic></source> (translated from the French by Sheridan Smith, A.M., from <source><italic>L’Archeologie du Savoir</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Gallimard</publisher-name>, Paris, 1969), <publisher-name>Pantheon Books</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b64"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Frohmann</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Rules of indexing: a critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>46</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>81</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>101</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b65"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Frohmann</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information science</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library and Information Science Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>119</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>38</lpage>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b66"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1965</year>), “<article-title><italic>Can citation indexing be automated?</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Stevens</surname>, <given-names>M.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al</italic>. (Eds), <source><italic>Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation. Symposium Proceedings, Washington, 1964</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous</publisher-loc>, Publication No.269, pp. <fpage>189</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>92</lpage>. (Reprinted in <source><italic>Essays of an Information Scientist</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume>, 1962‐1973, pp. 84‐90), available at: 165.123.33.33/eugene_garfield/essays/V1p084y1962‐73.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b67"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1976</year>), “<article-title><italic>Social‐sciences citation index clusters</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Current Contents</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>N27</volume>, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>11.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b68"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1978</year>), “<article-title><italic>High‐impact science and the case of Arthur Jensen</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Current Contents</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> N41</volume>, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>15.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b69"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1979</year>), <source><italic>Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities</italic></source>, <publisher-name>John Wiley</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b70"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1980</year>, “<article-title><italic>Is information retrieval in the arts and humanities inherently different from that in science? The effect that ISI’s citation index for the arts and humanities is expected to have on future scholarship</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Quarterly</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>40</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>57</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b71"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garfield</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Psychology research, 1986‐1990 – a citationist perspective on the highest impact papers, institutions, and authors</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Current Contents</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>41</volume>, 12 October, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>13</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b72"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garvey</surname>, <given-names>W.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Griffith</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1967</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scientific communication as a social system</italic></article-title>, <source><italic>Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>157</volume>, pp. <fpage>1011</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>16</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b73"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garvey</surname>, <given-names>W.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Griffith</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1971</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scientific communication: its role in the conduct of research and the creation of knowledge</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Psychologist</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume>, pp. <fpage>349</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>62.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b74"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garvey</surname>, <given-names>W.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Griffith</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1972</year>), “<article-title><italic>Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: empirical findings for psychology</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Storage and Retrieval</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume>, pp. <fpage>123</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>36</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b75"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gärdenfors</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cognitive science: from computers to anthills as models of human thought’</italic></article-title>’, <source><italic>Human IT</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-99/pg.htm">www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2‐99/pg.htm</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b76"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gopferich</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), <source><italic>Textsorten in Naturwissenschaft und Technik; pragmatische Typologie, Kontrastierung, Translation</italic></source>, (Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 27), <publisher-name>G. Narr</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b77"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Grindsted</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Wagner</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>Communication for Specific Purposes – Fachsprachliche Kommunikation, (Kommunikation und Institution 21) English and German. Papers from a Meeting held August 1990, at the Copenhagen Business School</italic></source>, <publisher-name>G. Narr</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Tübingen</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b78"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Grishman</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kittredge</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1986</year>), <source><italic>Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage Description and Processing, Workshop on Sublanguage Description and Processing, 1984 in New York University</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Lawrence Erlbaum Associates</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Hillsdale, NJ.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b79"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haas</surname>, <given-names>S.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996</year>, “<article-title><italic>Sublanguages and the automatic identification of sublanguage terms</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kent</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.), <source><italic>Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>58</volume>, <publisher-name>Marcel Dekker</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>302</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>10</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b80"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haas</surname>, <given-names>S.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Disciplinary variation in automatic sublanguage term identification</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 48</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>67</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>79</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b81"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haas</surname>, <given-names>S.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>He</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1993</year>), “<article-title><italic>Toward the automatic identification of sublanguage vocabulary</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Processing & Management</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 29</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>721</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>32</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b82"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Habermas</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), <source><italic>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society</italic></source>, (translated from Burgen, T. (1962), <source><italic>Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit; Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft</italic></source> (1962) by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Lawrence, F. (<source><italic>Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought</italic></source>), <publisher-name>MIT Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b83"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hale</surname>, <given-names>B.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1970</year>), <source><italic>The Subject Bibliography of the Social Sciences</italic></source>, (<source><italic>Special Bibliography, Special Librarianship</italic></source>), <publisher-name>Pergamon Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b84"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harding</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Indiana University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Bloomington, IN</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b85"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harris</surname>, <given-names>Z</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1968</year>), <source><italic>Mathematical Structures of Language</italic></source>, (Interscience tracts in pure and applied mathematics, No. 21), <publisher-name>Interscience Publishers</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b86"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hirschman</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sager</surname>, <given-names>N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1982</year>), “<article-title><italic>Automatic information formatting of a medical sublanguage</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kittredge</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Lehrberger</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds), <source><italic>Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains</italic></source>, <publisher-name>W. de Gruyter</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b87"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1988</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information retrieval in psychology</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> Nos <issue>3/4</issue>, pp. <fpage>39</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>64</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b88"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1991</year>), “Det kognitive paradigme i biblioteks‐ og informationsvidenskaben (<article-title><italic>The cognitive view of library and information science</italic></article-title>)”, <source><italic>Biblioteksarbejde</italic></source> (in Danish), Vol.<volume> 33</volume>, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>37</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b89"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1993</year>), “<article-title><italic>Toward a new horizon in information science (IS): domain‐analysis</italic></article-title>”, oral presentation given at ASIS 56’s Annual Meeting in Columbus, Ohio, 25 October, abstracts published on p. 290 in: <source><italic>ASIS ’93. Proceedings of the 56th ASIS Annual Meeting</italic></source>, 1993, Vol. <volume>30</volume>, <publisher-loc>Americal Society for Information Science & Learned Information, Medford, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b90"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Information Seeking and Subject Representationl An Activity‐theoretical Approach to Information Science</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Greenwood Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b91"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998a</year>), “<article-title><italic>The classification of psychology: a case study in the classification of a knowledge field</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Knowledge Organization</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>162</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>201</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b92"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Theory and metatheory of information science: a new interpretation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>54</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>606</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>21</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b93"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998c</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Knowledge Organization</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b94"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Review of Wallerstein (1996)</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Open the Social Sciences, Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Stanford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Stanford, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b95"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Epistemology and the sociocognitive perspective in information science</italic></article-title>”, inargural lecture 14 May 2001 at the installation of professors at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>53</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b96"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Albrechtsen</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Toward a new horizon in information science: domain analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>46</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>400</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>25</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b97"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hjørland</surname>, <given-names>B</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kyllesbech Nielsen</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Subject access points in electronic retrieval’</italic></article-title>’, <source><italic>Annual Review of Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b98"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Hoffmann</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kalverkaemper</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Wiegand</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds) (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Fachsprachen/Languages for Special Purposes: Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft/An International Handbook of Special Languages and Terminology Research</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Walter De Gruyter</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Berlin</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b99"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Hoffman</surname>, <given-names>R.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>The Psychology of Expertise. Cognitive Research and Empirical AI</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Springer Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b100"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Hoselitz</surname>, <given-names>B.F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.) (<year>1970</year>), <source><italic>A Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Free Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b101"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hull</surname>, <given-names>D.L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Taxonomy</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0</italic></source>,<publisher-name> Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b102"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hvari</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hirschheim</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Klein</surname>, <given-names>H.K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>A dynamic framework for classifying information systems development methodologies and approaches</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Management Information System</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>17</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>179</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>218</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b103"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Inchaurralde</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.) (<year>1994</year>), <source><italic>Perspectives on Semantics and Specialised Languages</italic></source>, papers presented at the Susanne Hubner Seminar (1993), <publisher-loc>Departamento de Filologia Inglesa y Alemana, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b104"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jarvis</surname>, <given-names>W.E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1985</year>), “<article-title><italic>Integrating subject pathfinders into online catalogs</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Database</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>65</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b105"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jauss</surname>, <given-names>H.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1987</year>), <source><italic>Die Theorie der Rezeption (Rückschau auf ihre unerkannte Vorgeschichte</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Universitetsverlag Konstanz GmbH, Konstanz</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b106"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kapoun</surname>, <given-names>J.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), ‘<article-title><italic>‘Re‐thinking the library pathfinder</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>College and Undergraduate Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>93</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>105</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b107"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kendrick</surname>, <given-names>P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Zafran</surname>, <given-names>E.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Indexing Specialties: Law</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Information Today</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Medford, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b108"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Sensitivity of Entry Vocabulary Modules to Subdomains, Technical Report</italic></source>, available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/subdomain.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b109"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Subdomain in EVM Dictionary Approach</italic></source>, available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/subdomain00.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b110"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kittredge</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lehrberger</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1982</year>), <source><italic>Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains</italic></source>, (Foundations of communication), <publisher-name>W. de Gruyter</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b111"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kováts</surname>, <given-names>E.S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1977</year>), “<article-title><italic>Non‐indexed citedness</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Current Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>72</volume> No. <issue>10</issue>, pp. <fpage>705</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b112"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kretzenbacher</surname>, <given-names>H.L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Rekapitulation; Texstrategien der Zusammenfassung von wissenschaftlichen Fachtexten</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 11, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b113"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lakemeyer</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Relevance from an epistemic perspective</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Artificial Intelligence</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>97</volume>, pp. <fpage>137</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>67</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b114"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lambrecht</surname>, <given-names>K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Information Structure and Sentence Form; Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents</italic></source>, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics No. 71, <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>,<publisher-loc> Cambridge</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b115"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Langridge</surname>, <given-names>D.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1976</year>, <source><italic>Classification and Indexing in the Humanities</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Butterworths</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b116"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Leydesdorff</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self‐organization of the Knowledge‐based Society</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Universal Publishers/uPublish.com</publisher-name></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b117"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Li</surname>, <given-names>T</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Social Science Reference Sources. A Practical Guide</italic></source>, <edition>3rd ed</edition>., <publisher-name>Greenwood Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Westport, CT.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b118"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Liddy</surname>, <given-names>E.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Enhanced text retrieval using natural language processing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-98/index.html">www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr‐98/index.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b119"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lloyd</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1993</year>), <source><italic>The Structures of History</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b120"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Losee</surname>, <given-names>R.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haas</surname>, <given-names>S.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Sublanguage terms – dictionaries, usage, and automatic classification</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>46</volume> No. <issue>7</issue>, pp. <fpage>519</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>29</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b121"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Luckhardt</surname>, <given-names>H.‐D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1984</year>), “<article-title><italic>Erste Überlegungen zur Vervendung des Sublanguage‐Konzepts in SUSY</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Multilingua</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>135</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>42</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b122"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Luckhardt</surname>, <given-names>H.‐D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Sublanguages, in Approaches to sense disambiguation. With respect to automatic indexing and machine translation</italic></article-title>”, <publisher-loc>Saarland University, Department of Information Science, Saarbrücken</publisher-loc>, available at: is.uni‐sb.de/papers/iwscript/infoling/ambi/sublanguage.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b123"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lykke Nielsen</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction</italic></article-title>”, <publisher-loc>ASIS SIG Classification Research Workshop, Classification for User Support and Learning Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>, Sunday, 12 November, available at: uma.info‐science.uiowa.edu/sigcr/papers/sigcr00lykke.pdf (accessed 18 September 2001).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b124"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lykke Nielsen</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction</italic></article-title>”, <publisher-loc>ASIS SIG Classification Research Workshop. Classification for User Support and Learning Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Chicago, IL</publisher-loc> Sunday, 12 November, Powerpoint presentation, available at: bx.db.dk/mln/powerpoint/domain.ppt (accessed 18 September 2001)..</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b125"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McIlwaine</surname>, <given-names>I.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>UDC in the twenty‐first century</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Marcella</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Maltby</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>The Future of Classification</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Gower Publishing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Aldershot</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b126"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>MacRoberts</surname>, <given-names>M.H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>MacRoberts</surname>, <given-names>B.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Problems of citation analysis: a critical review</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>40</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>342</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b127"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Madigan</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Johnson</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Linton</surname>, <given-names>P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>The language of psychology: APA style as epistemology</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Psychologist</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 50</volume>, pp. <fpage>428</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>36.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b128"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Madigan</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>.,<person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name> <surname>Linton</surname>, <given-names>P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Johnson</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>APA style: Quo vadis?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Psychologist</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>51</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>653</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b129"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Malmkjær</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Genre analysis</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Malmkjær</surname>, <given-names>K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.), <source><italic>The Linguistics Encyclopedia</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>170</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>81</lpage>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b130"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Maniez</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Database merging and the compatibility of indexing languages</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Knowledge Organization</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>213</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>24.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b131"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mayes</surname>, <given-names>P.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1978</year>), “<article-title><italic>The readability of guides to the literature</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Aslib Proceedings</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>123</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b132"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mills</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1957</year>), “<article-title><italic>The classification of a subject fieldon</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval</italic></source>, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, 13‐17 May, <publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>29</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>42</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b133"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mills</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Broughton</surname>, <given-names>V</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1977</year>), “<article-title><italic>Introduction and auxilliary schedules</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bliss Bibliographical Classification</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., <publisher-name>Butterworths</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b134"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Myers</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Writing Biology. Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge</italic></source>, <publisher-name>The University of Wisconsin Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Madison, WI</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b135"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Myers</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1991</year>), “<article-title><italic>Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bazerman</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Paradis</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities</italic></source>, <publisher-name>University of Winconsin Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Madison, WI</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>45</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>75</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b136"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>National Library of Medicine</string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Fact Sheet: NLM Classification</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html">www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b137"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Neighbors</surname>, <given-names>J.M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1980</year>), <source><italic>Software Construction Using Components</italic></source>, Technical Report 160, <publisher-loc>Department of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b138"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nystrand</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Greene</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wiemelt</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1993</year>), “<article-title><italic>Where did composition studies come from?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Written Communication</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>267</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>333</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b139"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ostwald</surname>, <given-names>W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1919</year>), <source><italic>Die chemische Literatur und die Organisation der Wissenschaft</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Leipzig</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b140"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ovesen</surname>, <given-names>J</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Classificare Necesse Est. Lidt om klassifikation i antropologien – og også ellers</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Harbo</surname>, <given-names>O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kajberg</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Eds), <source><italic>Orden i papirerne – en hilsen til J.B. Friis‐Hansen</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Danmarks Biblioteksskole, Copenhagen</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>117</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b141"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Persson</surname>, <given-names>O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Influential authors in library and information science 1986‐1996, an all author co‐citation map</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.umu.se/inforsk/LIS/index.htm">www.umu.se/inforsk/LIS/index.htm</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b142"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Persson</surname>, <given-names>O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>All author citations versus first author citations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scientometrics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>50</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>339</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>44</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b143"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Petras</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Subdomain entry vocabulary modules evaluation. Variation in subdomain indexes</italic></article-title>”, available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/subdvariation.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b144"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Prieto‐Diaz</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Domain analysis: an introduction</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Software Engineering Notes</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 15</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>54</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b145"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Procter</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goldenberg</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>., <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Davenport</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McKinlay</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Genres in support of collaborative information retrieval in the virtual library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interacting with Computers</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>157</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>75</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b146"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>PsycINFO</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>PsycINFO Classification Categories and Codes</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>American Psychological Association, Washington, DC</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/classcodes.html">www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/classcodes.html</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b147"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rasch</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1960</year>), <source><italic>Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Danmarks pædagogiske Institut, Copenhagen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b148"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rees‐Potter</surname>, <given-names>L.K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rees‐Potter</surname>, <given-names>L.K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Dynamic thesaural systems: a bibliometric study of terminological and conceptual change in sociology and economics with application to the design of dynamic thesaural systems</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Processing & Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>677</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>91</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b149"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rees‐Potter</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rees‐Potter</surname>, <given-names>L.K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1991</year>), “<article-title><italic>Dynamic thesauri: the cognitive function. Tools for knowledge organisation and the human interface</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Proceedings of the 1st International ISKO Conference</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Darmstadt</publisher-loc>, 14‐17 August 1990, <issue>Part 2,</issue> pp. <fpage>145</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b150"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Reiss</surname>, <given-names>E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Information Architecture Handbook; A Hands‐on Approach to Structuring Successful Websites</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Addison‐Wesley</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b151"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roberts</surname>, <given-names>N</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1977</year>), <source><italic>Use of Social Science Literature</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Butterworths</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b152"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sandison</surname>, <given-names>A</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Thinking about citation analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Documentation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>45</volume>, pp. <fpage>59</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>64</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b153"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Saracevic</surname>, <given-names>T</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1975</year>), “<article-title><italic>Relevance: a review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume>, pp. <fpage>321</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>43</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b154"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Schaeder</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bergenholtz</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>1994</year>), <source><italic>Fachlexikographie; Fachwissen und seine Repräsentation in Wörterbuchern</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 23, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b155"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Schröder</surname>, <given-names>H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed) (<year>1991</year>), <source><italic>Subject‐oriented Texts. Language for Special Puirposes and Text Theory</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Walter de Gruyter</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Berlin and New York, NY.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b156"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>The skewness of science</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>43</volume> No. <issue>9</issue>, pp. <fpage>628</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>38</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b157"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 45</volume> No.<issue> 1</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>11</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b158"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Bruk av siteringer og tidsskrift‐impaktfaktor til forskningsevaluering</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Biblioteksarbejde</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>17</volume> No. <issue>48</issue>, pp. <fpage>27</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>34</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b159"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1996b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Quantification of scientific article contents</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scientometrics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>355</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>66</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b160"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Allergy</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>52</volume> No.<issue> 11</issue>, pp. <fpage>1050</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b161"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Medical Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>314</volume> No. <issue>7079</issue>, pp. <fpage>498</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>502</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b162"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>69</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>224</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b163"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seglen</surname>, <given-names>P.O</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Aksnes</surname>, <given-names>D.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scientific productivity and group size: a bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scientometrics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>49</volume> No.<issue> 1</issue>, pp. <fpage>125</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>43</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b164"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Skiba</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Fachsprachenforschung in wissenschaftstheoretischer Perspektive</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 47, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b165"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Soergel</surname>, <given-names>D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>50</volume> No. <issue>12</issue>, pp.<fpage> 1119</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>20</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b166"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Somers</surname>, <given-names>H.L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Terminology, LSP, and Translation; Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager</italic></source>, Benjamins translation library, Vol. 18, J. <publisher-name>Benjamins Pub. Co</publisher-name>., <publisher-loc>Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b167"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sowa</surname>, <given-names>J.F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Brooks Cole Publishing Co</publisher-name>., <publisher-loc>Pacific Grove, CA.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b168"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Spark Jones</surname>, <given-names>K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Thesaurus</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Shapiro</surname>, <given-names>S.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.), <source><italic>Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence</italic></source>, Vol.<volume> 2</volume>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., <publisher-name>John Wiley & Sons</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>1605</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>13</lpage>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b169"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Spark Jones</surname>, <given-names>K</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kay</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1973</year>), <source><italic>Linguistics and Information Science</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b170"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Suominen</surname>, <given-names>V</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Hermeneutics of information management vs. hermeneutics of metadocumentation/librarianship: an ethically, politically and culturally necessary and inevitable distinction to be made</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at <publisher-loc>SCARLID</publisher-loc>, 12‐13 December, Oulu.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b171"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Summerville</surname>, <given-names>L</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cataloging, classification, and pedagogy: toward the catalog as a guide to the literature: reaction</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Cataloging & Classification Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>11</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>83</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b172"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Surles</surname>, <given-names>R.H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Legal research guides as bibliographic efforts</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Legal Reference Services Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> Nos <issue>1/2</issue>, pp. <fpage>43</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b173"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Swales</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1986</year>), “<article-title><italic>Citation analysis and discourse analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Applied Linguistics</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>39</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>56</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b174"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Swales</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b175"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Taylor</surname>, <given-names>P.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1978</year>), <source><italic>Information Guides. A Survey of Subject Guides to Sources of Information Produced by Library and Information Services in the United Kingdom</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Aslib, Research and Development Department, London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b176"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tibbo</surname>, <given-names>H.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Abstracting across the disciplines: a content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library & Information Science Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume>, pp. <fpage>31</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>56</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b177"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tibbo</surname>, <given-names>H.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1993</year>), <source><italic>Abstracting, Information Retrieval and the Humanities. Providing Access to Historical Literature</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>American Library Association, Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b178"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tibbo</surname>, <given-names>H.R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Indexing for the humanities</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>45</volume> No. <issue>8</issue>, pp. <fpage>607</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>19</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b179"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Timm</surname>, <given-names>C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>Gibt es eine Fachsprache der Literaturwissenschaft? Fachtextlinguistische Untersuchungen an englischen Texten der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Leipziger Fachsprachen‐Studien, Bd. 4, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main and New York, NY</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b180"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Timpka</surname>, <given-names>T</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1995</year>, “<article-title><italic>Situated clinical cognition</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Artificial Intelligence in Medicine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume>, pp. <fpage>387</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>94</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b181"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Towery</surname>, <given-names>M</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Indexing Specialties: History</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Information Today</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Medford, NJ.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b182"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Unisist</string-name></person-group> (<year>1971</year>), <source><italic>Study Report on the Feasibility of a World Science Information System</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions, Unesco, Paris</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b183"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vickery</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1960</year>), <source><italic>Faceted Classification. A Guide to the Construction and Use of Special Schemes</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b184"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vickery</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1975</year>), <source><italic>Classification and Indexing in Science</italic></source>, <edition>3rd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Butterworths</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b185"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vickery</surname>, <given-names>B.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Ontologies</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>277</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>86</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b186"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>von Eyben</surname>, <given-names>W.E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Juridisk stil og sprogbrug</italic></article-title>”, in, København, S., <source><italic>Juridisk grundbog, Bd. 3</italic></source>, pp.<fpage> 11</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>62.</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b187"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>von Hahn</surname>, <given-names>W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1981</year>), <source><italic>Fachsprachen</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Wege der Forschung, Bd. 498, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b188"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Walker</surname>, <given-names>G</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Searching the humanities: subject overlap and search vocabulary</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Database</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>37</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>46</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b189"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wallerstein</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al</italic>. (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Open the Social Sciences, Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Stanford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Stanford, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b190"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Webb</surname>, <given-names>W.H</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1986</year>), <source><italic>Sources of Information in the Social Sciences: A Guide to the Literature</italic></source>, <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name>3rd ed</string-name></person-group>., <publisher-loc>American Library Association, Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b191"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wendt</surname>, <given-names>S</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Terminus, Thesaurus, Text; Theorie und Praxis von Fachbegriffsystemen und ihrer Reprasentation in Fachtexten</italic></source>, <publisher-loc>Forum fur Fachsprachen‐Forschung, Bd. 37, G. Narr, Tübingen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b192"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>H.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McCain</surname>, <given-names>K.W</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Visualizing a discipline: an author co‐citation analysis of information science, 1972‐1995</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>49</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>327</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b193"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Whitley</surname>, <given-names>R</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed</edition>., <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b194"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wiberly</surname>, <given-names>S.E</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1983</year>), “<article-title><italic>Subject access in the humanities and the precision of the humanist’s vocabulary</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Quarterly</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>420</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>33</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b195"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Williams</surname>, <given-names>R.V</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>The documentation and special libraries movements in the United States, 1910‐1960</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>48</volume> No. <issue>9</issue>, pp. <fpage>775</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>81</lpage>, (reprinted in Hahn, T.B. and Buckland, M. (Eds) (1998), <source><italic>Historical Studies in Information Science</italic></source>, <publisher-name>ASIS/Information Today</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Medford, NJ</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>173</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>80</lpage>).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b196"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wilson</surname>, <given-names>T.D</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Information needs and uses: fifty years of progress?</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Vickery</surname>, <given-names>B.C</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.), <source><italic>Fifty Years of Information Progress: A Journal of Documentation Review</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Aslib</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>15</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b197"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Wyman</surname>, <given-names>L.P</given-names></string-name></person-group>. (Ed.) (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Indexing Specialities: Medicine</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Information Today</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Medford, NJ.</publisher-loc></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Domain analysis in information science</title><subTitle>Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Domain analysis in information science</title><subTitle>Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Birger</namePart><namePart type="family">Hjrland</namePart><affiliation>Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="review-article" displayLabel="e-literature-review"></genre><originInfo><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-08-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domainspecific knowledge This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are producing literature guides and subject gateways producing special classifications and thesauri research on indexing and retrieving specialities empirical user studies bibliometrical studies historical studies document and genre studies epistemological and critical studies terminological studies, LSP languages for special purposes, discourse studies studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Information technology</topic><topic>Knowledge workers</topic><topic>Documentation</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Documentation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-IKM">Information & knowledge management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-ICT">Information & communications technology</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IMG">Information management & governance</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-INT">Internet</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IMAN">Information management</topic></subject><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CCAT">Classification & cataloguing</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CBM">Collection building & management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IBRT">Information behaviour & retrieval</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-RMP">Records management & preservation</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-SCPG">Scholarly communications/publishing</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-DOCM">Document management</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0022-0418</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">jd</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/jd</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>58</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>422</start><end>462</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/00220410210431136</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">2780580404</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">2780580404.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">00220410210431136.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© MCB UP Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sarre/explor/MusicSarreV3/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001701 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001701 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sarre
|area= MusicSarreV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:DE89532E09862FF3987C0CFFC4FB4028C10DE565
|texte= Domain analysis in information science
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |