No description available.

Aimed at students of library and information science, this paper is introductory in nature and provides basic information about the relationship between knowledge organization systems, ontologies and the World Wide Web architecture known as the Semantic Web. The Web is expected to be gradually populated by content with formalized semantics that will enable the automation of content organization and its retrieval. As implied by its name, the Semantic Web will assume a higher level of connectivity which is going to be based on resource content and meaning while the information organization will predominantly be automatic i.e. based on machine to machine (m2m) information services. This is the reason why the Semantic idea is closely related to the development of ontologies (a simple explanation of an ontology and ontology languages is given based on relevant literature). Traditional knowledge organization systems (KOS) such as classifications and thesauri have been deployed for resource organization and discovery on the Internet and have become de facto standards in resource discovery. KOS tools are likely to become even more important with the Semantic Web, providing they can be exposed and shared using ontologically orientated standards.

No description available.

A book review of a book criticizing the famous classification system developed by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707â 1778), which has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. The review considers theoretical issues in classification and the importance of the book for the field of Knowledge Organization.

Materials Digital Library, Kent State University / Materials Property Data Markup Language (MatML) provides detailed materials property information necessary for the exchange of materials science digital resources among users. Dublin Core (DC) provides a consistent generic characterization of content important for resource discovery. The feasibility of reusing detailed information provided by MatML to supply DC metadata is explored. Preliminary data gathered from three examples of materials science resources indicates that MatML tags may be successfully mapped to DC elements. A prototype webbased authoring tool designed to assist authors in generating MatML as well as to map MatML information to DC elements is discussed.

In this dissertation I analyze the relationship between social organization and knowledge organization. This analysis is carried out on two levels. The first level consists of three chapters each examining particular perspectives of the relationship. First, in terms of an examination of how communication technologies have shaped forms of social organization. I argue how knowledge organization is constituted by social organization. Second, I further situate knowledge organization in light of Jurgen Habermas theory of the public sphere and argue that his theory can be viewed as a fundamental model of knowledge organization. Third, by drawing on various theories of genre and activity systems, I underpin the connection between social organization in scholarly communication by means of how indexing reflects and responds to the rhetorical activities of scholarly articles. I consider this as how knowledge organization can ascribe cognitive authority to documents. The texts are considered to constitute the mediating link between social organization and knowledge organization. I conclude that this relationship between social organization and knowledge organization must be understood and examined in order to fully account for the role knowledge organization in human activities based on document production and use such as scholarly communication.

Presentations and discussions of different approaches to Knowledge Organization from Melvil Dewey to Internet enginees: 1. â Traditional approachesâ 2. Management oriented approaches 3. Logical and facet-analytic approaches 4. Computer based approaches 5. Bibliometric approaches 6. User oriented and cognitive approaches 7. Domain analytic approaches

"Bias" is normally understood as a negatively loaded word, as something to be avoided or minimized, for example, in statistics or in knowledge organization. Recently Melanie Feinberg suggested, however, that "if we cannot eliminate bias, then we should instead attempt to be more responsible about it and explicitly decide on and defend the perspectives represented in information systems". This view is linked to related views: That knowledge organization is too much concerned with information retrieval and too much described in the mode of scientific discovery, as opposed to the mode of artifact design: "From the literary warrant of Hulme to the terminological warrant of the Classification Research Group (CRG), to Hjørland’s domain analysis, the classificationist seems like one who documents and compiles, and not one who actively shapes design." This paper examines these claims, which may be understood as questions about subjectivity and objectivity in classification and about positivism versus pragmatism in research. Is KO an objective and neutral activity? Can it be? Should it be? A dominant view has been that knowledge and KO should be understood as a passive reflection of an external order. This has been termed the mirror metaphor of knowledge and is related to empiricism and positivism. The opposite view - which is in accordance with both Feinberg and Hjørland - states that knowledge organization should be functional and thus reflecting given goals, purposes and values. It is related to pragmatism in philosophy.

No description available.

Contents: Introduction: The importance of semantics for information science (IS) The status of semantic research in information science. Semantics and the philosophy of science. Semantics and subject knowledge Semantics and its â warrantâ a) Query/situation specific or idiosyncratic b) Universal, Platonic entities/relations c) â Deep semanticsâ common to all languages (or inherent in cognitive structures) d) Specific to specific empirical languages (e.g. Swedish) e) Domain or discourse specific f) Other (e.g. determined by a company or by a workgroup, â user orientedâ ) Semantic relations The 'intellectual' versus the social organization of knowledge Conclusion