Artificial Intelligence Lab, Department of MIS, University of Arizona / Concept maps (CM) are informal, semantic, node-link conceptual graphs used to represent knowledge in a variety of applications. Algorithms that compare concept maps would be useful in supporting educational processes and in leveraging indexed digital collections of concept maps. Map comparison begins with element matching and faces computational challenges arising from vocabulary overlap, informality, and organizational variation. Our implementation of an adapted similarity flooding algorithm improves matching of CM knowledge elements over a simple string matching approach.

Knowledge Management is considered important for organizational development, and organizational librarians are seen as capable players in this field. This paper presents the view that special libraries can be places for the knowledge management practices but concludes that the librarians have to move from their passive roles and assume the roles of partners in this environment.

A version in is available in LATVIAN on this place: http://szf.lu.lv/sites/szf/module_data/introduction/Nodalas/Inform_Biblio/Semantika_ZO.ppt / Outlines a view of semantics and its implications for Knowledge Organization. All knowledge organizing systems (KOS) consist of concepts, their definitions, selection, semantic relations/meaning relations and other kinds of information, why KOS should be understood as semantic tools. By implication knowledge organization as a field of study is dependent of a proper theoretical understanding of semantics. Such a theoretical understanding of semantics is outlined in this presentation. Contents of this presentation: 1. Semantics exemplified by thesauri 2. Semantics and other kinds of knowledge organizing systems/ 3. Semantic tools 4. Theories of semantics 4b. Kinds of semantic relations 5. Implications for Library and Information Science (LIS)

The core problem in Information Science (IS) is in my opinion information seeking and "information retrieval", (IR), which is aimed at helping users become informed by helping them identify documents, which are the "best textual means to some end" (Wilson, 1968). Other problems, such as the design of information systems and knowledge organization (e.g. by classification and indexing) should be seen as means to that end. However, IS has ignored some fundamental problems, which questions the possibility of having a profession and a discipline trying to solve the above mentioned problems. Much research in IS has been based on certain problematic views of knowledge, and searched for principles of knowledge organization, which are independent of claims of subject-knowledge. In this paper, we shall look at the problems of knowledge organization based on a view of knowledge as a historical developed product in which principles of organization is tied to domain-specific criteria. The article is organized as an argumentation for nine principles on the organization of knowledge: Principle # 1: Naive-realistic perception of knowledge structures is not possible in more advanced sciences. The deepest principles on the organization on knowledge rest upon principles developed in and by scientific disciplines. Principle # 2: Categorizations and classifications should unite related subjects and separate unrelated subjects. In naive realism, subject relationships are based on similarity. Two things or subjects are seen as related if they are "alike", that is if they have common properties (descriptive terms) ascribed. Principle # 3 For practical purposes, knowledge can be organized in different ways, and with different levels of ambition: Principle # 4: Any given categorization should reflect the purpose of that categorization. It is very important to teach the student to find out the lie of the land and apply ad hoc classifications, pragmatic classifications or scientific classifications when each kind of classification is most appropriate. Principle # 5: Concrete scientific categorizations and classifications can always be questioned. Principle # 6: The concept of "polyrepresentation" (cf. Ingwersen, 1994) is important. Principle # 7: To a certain degree different arts and sciences could be understood as different ways of organizing the same phenomena. Principle # 8: The nature of disciplines varies. Principle # 9: The quality of the knowledge production in many disciplines is in great trouble

In this presentation I try to say something about how to define scientific terms in general as well as something about the specific term â a workâ . The way we define terms depends on our philosophical assumptions. I have illustrated differences between positivist and non-positivist ways of defining terms and advocated a pragmatic way of understanding terms, concepts and knowledge. I have also indicated that different subcultures within LIS tend to use different terms and concepts (such as "a work"), but have tried to demonstrate that we may gain a more coherent and satisfactory state of our field if we try to overcome the barriers between those subcultures.

This chapter deals with the part of the library and information science (LIS) curriculum involving knowledge organizational systems and processes, which is an important core of the LIS discipline; arguably - together with information seeking & retrieval (IS&R) - the central core. Knowledge Organization (KO) contributes to make documents accessible for users whether they browse or search. KO is about providing optimal conditions for the identification and retrieval of documents or parts of documents. The suggestions made in this chapter are based on an analysis of the scientific knowledge about KO as developed until now.

This book review considers some theoretical issues in classification theory and the relevance of this book for the community of Knowledge Organization.

A favored text, dog-eared and yellowed from use, yet still useful, brings back insights that we try to impart to our students when we teach knowledge organization, organization and control of recorded information courses, whichever words we have chosen to label them. Scribbled in the margins1 are notes to self, keywords, subject headings? “tags”? to remind us of why this particular passage was relevant to us. These scribbles include notes about the thoughts, subjects, eloquent linguistics that we wish to remember, and to access at a later time, maybe even our thoughts that occurred as we read the words. Should someone pick up this same text and read the passages and also the notes, would one necessarily draw the same conclusions, or would one have yet other insights into the author’s meanings, the scribbles, the words?2 Wilson (1968) reminds us that “What a text says is not necessarily what it reveals or what it allows us to conclude. . . . but what is not said may interest us more than what is said” (p. 18). How then do we access the facts, truths, assertions, that the text conveys, or doesn’t convey, or the different truths, assertions, that occur to another when they read the text? Our knowledge organization structures provide access points to follow. Classification schemes, controlled vocabularies, ontologies, taxonomies, and the like, have been used to access various levels of subject content within the texts.3 How then, do we access the “meaning”, the conclusions, insights others’ make while reading the words, the scribbles in the margins? This is an old argument. Knowledge organization structures are not static. We struggle to update classification schemes and conduct research to determine if they work. Controlled vocabularies have been criticized as being out of date, containing arcane, discriminatory, Anglo-centric terminology (Olson, 2002). We have conducted studies that show that users don’t understand how to use subject headings (Markey, 1984; Drabenstott and Vizine-Goetz, 1990), or that the words they choose for searching do not match subject headings (Taylor, 1984; Carlyle, 1989; Doyen and Wheeler, 1989; Lester, 1989; Abbas, 2001). So what have we done with the knowledge we gained from this research? Has it changed our way of thinking about knowledge organization and subject access? On the surface, it seems the Web has taken much of knowledge organization out of our hands. Users can access this vast depository of texts by entering a few words into a search box, and they do. Studies have shown us that most web searchers are not concerned with thinking up precise, well defined Boolean search strings. They enter a few key (relevant to them) words and click a button. They then sift through the multitude of hits and find at least one or more that satisfice their information need. In online collaborative sharing communities, such as Flickr (http://www.flickr.com), del.icio.us (http://www.delicious.com), and LibraryThing (http://www.librarything.com), users can organize images, cluster bookmarks, and catalog their own personal libraries, etc. using words that are relevant to them. They are not using our knowledge organization devices. They are creating their own as they use/view others’ tags. Vander Wahl (2006) has been credited with coining the term “folksonomy”, or the resulting cluster of terms that emerges when a community describes texts. Folksonomies are then used for subject representation. Other proponents of this concept/or the process of enabling subject access using user-defined descriptors are: Hastings (1995); O’Connor (1996); Bates (1998); O’Connor, O’Connor, and Abbas (1999); Abbas (2001, 2005) to name a few. The Web gave us an environment to test the efficacy of using user-defined descriptors for subject (as well as physical) access. We might then assume that collaborative sharing communities are in effect, “scribbling in the margins” when they tag their images, their bookmarks, their libraries.4 They are choosing a few words or phrases to represent the “meaning” of the text to them. They are then re-using these words as their own controlled vocabularies. Others are sometimes invited to provide their own tags, thereby providing their meaning for the object. Tag clouds (the resulting structures built as a result of tagging objects) then become visual representations of meaning to at least this one user, microcommunities, and to a larger society of users. Tag clouds become mechanisms not just for representation, but for retrieval. Blair (1990) provides a further context for examining social representation and access issues. He posits that the language we use to represent both our information needs and to index texts is learned in a social context or community. Blair explains the theory of “language games”, as first developed by the early twenty century philosopher Ludwig Wittengenstein and the process in which we learn language and meaning. We do not acquire language purely by learning the word and its definition, but instead learn its use and appropriateness within the context of our “forms of life” or everyday experiences. Furthermore, we have to possess some prior understanding of the form of life or the language game context we are engaged in before the words can have meaning. Users of online sharing communities are engaging within the social context of a particular community. Each person who contributes tags is engaging in “language games” as they go through their daily “forms of life” or experiences. Where this practice may differ from Wittgenstein’s conception, is that there are few limits on what is accepted or unaccepted practice. Users can tag using their own constructions, experiences, meanings, with the only limits imposed being of technological nature. So, where does this leave us? Where do we go from here? We have a rich source that is untapped. Our OPACs gather users’ search terms and search sessions. Websites also track and collect this same information about access. Online collaborative sharing sites are developing folksonomies. Each of these sources can tell us volumes about how our users access information. These sources provide us with a glimpse into user’s perceptions and cognitive processes as they scribble in the margins. At the very least, these sources provide us with the terms used, and with further study, may potentially provide contextual meaning. What we need to consider now is how we can use these sources to adapt, augment, revitalize our knowledge organization structures. There are efforts underway to do just this. Museum and library communities, for example, are exploring the usefulness, as well as logistics, of gathering and incorporating users’ tags into their websites, online exhibits, and WebPACs (Trant, 2006; Spiteri, 2006; Sweda, 2006). Digital libraries that have been developed for youth are also exploring the idea of using user-defined descriptors as subject headings (Abbas, 2001, 2005; Reuter and Druin, 2004). More needs to be considered. More needs to be learned. What do we know about social classification, tagging, and its meaning and use for users? Potential areas of exploration include: *What does tagging mean to users? Is it a way to describe a text, a scribble in the margins, or a search term? Are these potential uses different to users? *What are users’ motivations for tagging (personal findability or organization; communal or familial sharing; meaning making)? *Can we apply Wittgenstein’s “Language Games” theory to what is happening in online sharing communities? Can this inform knowledge organization theory and practice? *What can we learn from collaborative classification, folksonomy development? How can we incorporate this learning into classification scheme and controlled vocabulary development? Should we try to make tags more consistent and follow knowledge organization conventions or do we just watch and learn? Can we/should we apply traditional controlled vocabulary constraints on user-defined descriptors? Notes 1. The author is in no manner condoning the practice of writing in the margins of library or other’s books, but keeps this practice only at a local level. 2. The reader is reminded of the impact on scientific discovery accomplished by reading someone else’s notes in the margins. Johannes Kepler’s work on elliptical orbits was influenced by notes he read in the margins of a second-hand copy of Copernicus’ De revolutionibis. (Gingerich, 2004). 3. Texts for this discussion could include any information bearing object, regardless of format, but to maintain the “argument” being developed, the word “text” will be used. 4. Use of the term scribbling in either context should in no way indicate a quick, easy process void of thought or consideration. Some tags may be created quickly, but others are only applied after much deliberation, examination of existing tags, or even by using the tag clouds, or other social classification structures of the community.

Scerriâ s book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. The book review considers the theoretical basis of this classification system as well as implications for the field of Knowledge Organization.

František Kupka (1871-1957), a Czech painter who spent most of his career in France, one of the artists sometimes described as the father of abstract art, a sometime spirit medium and theosophist, also has a contribution to make to the organization of information. At a knowledge organization conference in Washington, DC some years ago I visited the National Gallery of Art and, rounding a corner, was confronted by Kupka's roughly six-by-six foot painting Organization of Graphic Motifs II. The painting along with its earlier and later variants epitomizes Kupka's interpretation of how images are organized in the creation of art. This paper will lay open Kupka's philosophy of art as it parallels or opposes some of the basic tenets of the organization of information with the Organization of Graphic Motifs cluster of works as an example. The proposed paper will elaborate on Kupka's philosophy of art, explore examples, consider the implications for representation of images/knowledge/information, and pose questions. In knowledge organization we typically presume that our goal is to represent reality as closely as possible. For Kupka there is a truth in representing a new, artist-constructed reality. Is the notion of a different reality and a representation that conflicts with "real" reality acceptable or anathema in the organization of images (or knowledge)? Are artists the only ones who can create representations in a new reality or can classifiers/indexers do so as well? How does this vision of representation contribute to inconsistency and subjectivity in the organization of images/knowledge/information?