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?

Very useful for those looking for biotechnology related digital resources available online. / Information is a dynamic and inexhaustible source that affects all disciplines and Animal Biotechnology is no exception. The application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing and production of materials by animals or aquatic species to provide goods and services, has yielded new and improved medicines for animals that help lower production costs and improve animal well being by fighting various diseases caused by bacteria and parasites. New and enhanced animal vaccines have also been developed through modern animal biotechnology techniques. For all these things, Animal biotechnologists require latest, authenticated and scholarly information. In this regard, the exponential growth of the Internet expands the wealth of knowledge resources available in all disciplines including animal biotechnology and the amount of biotechnology knowledge available on the web is staggering. The Internet connects them to organizations such as universities, colleges, research institutes and companies who are dealing with animal biotechnology and facilitates access to informal organizations such as special interest groups, email lists, news groups, blogs, etc. Databases such as Entrez Nucleotides, GenBank, RefSeq, CCDSD, TPAD, dbEST, dbGSS, dbMHC, dbSNP, dbSTS, UniVec, CDD, Entrez Proteins, MMDB, 3DDD are made available by NCBI across the cyberspace which facilitates 24/7 access to all those concerned with animal biotechnology. Gateway sites like AgBiotechNet, APHIS of USDA, ISB of Virginia Tech University opens the door of online documents and searchable databases pertaining to the development, testing and regulatory review of genetically modified plants, animals and other microorganisms. A number of factual databases, electronic journals, electronic books and other electronic documents are freely available across the Internet. It connects students, research scholars, academics, librarians, scientists and other category of professionals dealing with animal biotechnology. The opportunities provided by the Internet for interactive learning, up-to-date science news, scholarly contents, project funding guidance, audio-visual contents in the area of biotechnology are laudable.

No description available.

When we examine how and why decisions get made in the indexing enterprise writ large, we see that two factors shape the outcome: economics and aesthetics. For example, the Library of Congress has reduced the time and effort it has spent on creating bibliographic records, while the Library and Archives Canada has begun coordinating the work of librarians and archivists in describing the documentary heritage of Canada (Oda and Wilson, 2006; LAC, 2006). Both of these initiatives aim at reducing costs of the work of description. They are decisions based on economic considerations. When engaged in deciding what fields, tags, and indicators to use in cataloguing, librarians consider the cost of labour and whether or not the system will use that work for display and retrieval. On the other hand, international bodies craft standards that are designed to shape the indexing enterprise. For example, we see the form of controlled vocabularies in ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005. We then evaluate such vocabularies as to whether or not they comport with that form. This is one interpretation of the aesthetic consideration of indexing. We can take this further. We can look at indexing theory and, for example the work of Ranganathan and the CRG, and compare instantiations of classification schemes as to whether or not they are truly faceted. These examples result from designers and implementers of description and identification systems asking: what is good enough? When is my framework for information organization good enough? Though each of these acts is governed by a different purpose (sometimes pragmatic, sometimes artistic), the acts involved, the identification and description of resources, is measured against both economic and aesthetic concerns: how much does it cost, and how well does it comply with an abstract form, how is it evocative of our human urge to name and organize? Information organization frameworks, like those discussed above, comprise structures, work practices, and discourses. Examples of structure would be: the bibliographic record, the archival description, and the list developed by the patrons of the art installation. Work practices enable, result in, and evaluate structures, and the discourse shapes how priorities and purposes are aligned in both work practices and structures. Key to all examples of and components of Information Organization Frameworks are considerations of cost and compliance with abstract form (standardization or design). This paper explores the diversity of information organization frameworks, looking specifically at how aesthetic concerns and economic concerns manifest their work practices, structures, and discourse. In order to do this I examine the manuals and policies that shape work practice, the structures and their paratextual material (introductions, how-to-use guides, etc.), and the literature that references these practices and structures. I take the position that we need to move into a more descriptive stance on practices of knowledge organization, not only in documentary heritage institutions (libraries, archives, and museums), but also into the cultural and artistic realms. By expanding the scope of inquiry we can interrogate the integrity of my assertion above that information organization frameworks wrestle with, and manifest along a spectrum drawn from economic to aesthetic decision-making. This project, investigating the economic-aesthetic axis of information organization frameworks, follows the recent development in knowledge organization research, which is moving from prescriptive (how to design systems) to a descriptive (what systems are being built, how and why) approach, (Beghtol, 2003; Andersen, 2005). By engaging in this work, we grow more familiar with not only the professional concerns with knowledge organization, but rather, expand the scope of our inquiring into the knowledge organization practices for various purposes, and develop a deeper understanding of the human urge to name and organize.

Invited paper for a thematic issue of the journal "What is Knowledge Organization"? / Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: â What is knowledge organization?â differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.