In our comment (Hjørland & Nicolaisen, 2004) to Beghtol (2003) we were reacting to the fact that Beghtol describes the classifications developed by scholars as â naïveâ while she describes the classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as â professionalâ . We explained that we feared this unfortunate terminology is rooted in misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and scholarly classification on the one hand and LIS classifications on the other. We stated that only a correction of this misjudgment might give us in the field of KO a chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world. Beghtol (2004), in her reply to us, claims that the term â naïveâ as she defines it, is not a pejorative term. But she fails to explain why. This paper examines and responds to the views put forwards in Beghtol (2004).

This is a presentation of 15 slides at the Metadata Education Resources Clearinghouse: Background and Future Plans session sponsored by the Technical Services SIG at the 2006 Annual Conference of the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE), 17 January, 2006, San Antonio, Texas. Explains the rationale for the design of the prototype .

Knowledge strategy is the set of guidelines that shape the decisions that an organization makes regarding the acquisition, storage, manipulation, and application of its knowledge base. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe the influence knowledge strategy has on the manner in which an organizationâ s knowledge is organized. Using semi-structured interviews of upper level executives from various industries, relationships are established between certain characteristics of knowledge strategy types (e.g. proactive or reactive knowledge acquisition) and the organization of knowledge within the organization. Results indicate that certain aspects of a knowledge strategy are linked to certain approaches to knowledge organization, though organizational characteristics such as structure and industry type also play a major role.

The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. The method used is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.

The presentation was held at the 2007 NKOS workshop in Budapest, Hungary. / Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow content annotation by their users (= tagging) has been created. Simultaneously a debate on the pros and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. A stable category model for social tags on a linguistic as well as functional level is presented, based on data gathered from the scientific bibliography management tool connotea. Also some initial findings of a comparative analysis of social tags and author keywords are reported.

The heterogeneous environment of information retrieval on the World Wide Web has brought recognition for the need of interoperability among diverse systems to the fore. In subject retrieval, users encounter not only different vocabularies and schemes but also different languages. As a result, there has been a flourish of projects in the last few years aimed at improving interoperability among subject vocabularies and knowledge organization schemes, with some targeting different vocabularies and others focusing on different languages. This paper attempts to analyze the methods used in these projects. It begins with a brief overview and then examines in particular the approaches and methods used in relevant efforts.

Abstract: This paper tells a story of a practitionerâ s experience in a First Nations library and how it shaped a doctoral research project on knowledge organization. It connects the landscape on the edge of a pacific forest to considerations of the impacts of the erasures of Indigenous knowledges by dominant knowledge organization systems and practices. The LIS literature on cultural bias in knowledge organization is reviewed and some ameliorative initiatives described. A theoretical lens conjoins the new sociology of education with analyses by Indigenous governance organizations. The potential of LIS research to contribute to the naming and reclaiming of Indigenous knowledges is highlighted and a proposed research plan to contribute to methodologies for Indigenous knowledge organization is outlined.

Consider the theoretical problems and developments in the field of Knowledge Organization. The dominant tendency within LIS has always been â positivistâ , understood as a tendency (or an ideal) to rely on observations and logic only, disregarding context, values, interests, historical development and socio-cultural issues. It is argued that the opposite view, pragmatism, provides a much more fruitful basis. The pragmatic theory of knowledge seeks the criteria for selecting and describing informative objects in the goals that they are intended to support. The widespread ideology of objectivity and neutrality and universal solutions may be counterproductive in developing our field.

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