Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. The Nature of Knowledge Organization Systems to Serve Interdisciplinarity

verfasst von : Rick Szostak, Claudio Gnoli, María López-Huertas

Erschienen in: Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Chapter 2 closed with a list of the desired attributes of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for interdisciplinarity. This chapter opens with a brief survey of KOSs, and then asks what sort of KOS could provide these desired attributes. In particular, it provides arguments for the theses that:

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel The Needs of Interdisciplinary Research
Nächstes Kapitel Phenomenon Versus Discipline-Based Classification
Fußnoten
1
Causal relationships were only one type of connection for which Ranganathan recommended synthetic notation (‘phase relationships’). Another occurred when the subject matter of one discipline was applied to another. Such connections are also captured by classifying works in terms of theory and method applied. Ranganathan also discussed possible ways in which concepts might be related definitionally; this concern is also addressed elsewhere. Rowley and Hartley (2008) and Marcella and Newton (1994, 60) are among many information scientists who have urged the use of synthetic notation.
 
2
Wesolek (2012) asserts incorrectly that Szostak opposes domain analysis. Szostak had opposed only an exclusive reliance on domain analysis. Wesolek does appreciate that Szostak sought to balance Hjørland’s inductive approach with a deductive comprehensive analysis.
 
3
Hjørland (2013) worries that classifications differ by ontology, and thus there is no one best ontology. Yet his conclusion stresses that we should ground classifications in scientific understanding within different fields. The approach recommended here aspires to do precisely that. The question as to how well these domain-specific understandings of the world fit within a comprehensive ontology is an empirical question. There is certainly considerable consensus around the existence of at least some types of things and relationships. We are nevertheless guided to reduce opportunities for conflict.
 
4
Most of the headings for a thesaurus in women’s studies could be terms used in a general classification (López-Huertas and Torres Ramirez 2007). The authors worry that employing such a structure does not accurately reflect what is considered important in the field. But it might be possible to construct a thesaurus that prioritized the terminology of the field while providing links to the terms in a general classification.
 
5
Beghtol (2003) noted that literary warrant—the idea that a place must be found for all works in a bibliographic classification—guides information science to build its classifications upon those developed by scholars. But scholars develop classifications in the first instance to aid research on the frontiers of understanding, and these “naïve” classifications need not be ideally suited to organizing information for retrieval.
 
6
Olson (2007) notes that users often wish to search for syntagmatic relationships, such as embroidered Christmas ornaments, but the bulk of effort in information science has focused on paradigmatic relationships (those that always hold). General users as well as interdisciplinary scholars will clearly benefit from a synthetic approach.
 
7
Davis and Shaw (2011, 32–3) appreciate the existence of a confirmation bias whereby users often seek information that accords with their point of view.
 
8
Questions regarding if/how to signal how well particular theories or methods are applied are beyond the scope of this book. Szostak (2014b) explores some possibilities.
 
9
Hjørland (2012) explores the possibilities for knowledge organization in a world “after Google.” He appears to appreciate the value of some sort of general classification in meeting this challenge.
 
10
See Ranganathan (1967) on seminal mnemonics.
 
11
It should be noted that there are multiple upper level ontologies following different sets of axioms (and ontologists such as Masolo et al. n.d., aspire merely to link these and identify their sources of difference—which notably include preferences over different degrees of compounding), and thus the path through ontology to a general classification is at this point unclear (see Masolo et al. n.d., for a comparison of several upper-level ontologies). [The National Centre for Ontological Research in the United States does aspire to instill certain logical principles that would facilitate cross-ontology communication.] Moreover it should be appreciated that some ontologies would exclude logically many documents/ideas from consideration (e.g. the past may be thought to be unreal). The sort of logical argument that ontologists engage (such as how abstract things such as numbers can be said to exist without existing at any particular point in time) are often of little import to the classificationist.
 
12
Topic maps (Melgar Estrada 2011) are yet another approach that could potentially benefit from an exhaustive classification of phenomena and causal relationships.
 
13
Almeida (2013) argues that the purpose of ontology is to capture the nature of a work, not just its subject. We have seen above that the sort of classification urged here should capture the nature of a work.
 
Literatur
Almeida MB (2013) Revisiting ontologies: a necessary clarification. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(8):1682–1693CrossRef
Beghtol C (1998) Knowledge domains: multidisciplinarity and bibliographic classification systems. Knowl Org 25(1/2):1–12
Beghtol C (2003) Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between “Professional” and “Naïve” classifications. Knowl Org 30(2):64–73
Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus, Berlin
Broughton V (2010) Concepts and terms in the faceted classification: the case of UDC. Knowl Org 37(4):270–279
Cesanelli E (2008) Classificare il dominio della comunicazione secondo la teoria dei livelli di integrazione. E-LIS. http://​eprints.​rclis.​org/​14632/​
Cheti A, Paradisi F (2008) Facet analysis in the development of a general controlled vocabulary. Axiomathes 18(2):223–241CrossRef
Cleverdon CW, Keen EM (1966) Factors determining the performance of indexing systems. Vol. 1: Design, Vol. 2: Results. Aslib Cranfield Research Project, Cranfield, UK
Davis CH, Shaw D (2011) Introduction to information science &technology. ASIST Monograph Series, Medford, NJ
DeRidder JL (2007) The immediate prospects for the application of ontologies in digital libraries. Knowl Org 34(4):227–246
Dervos D, Coleman A (2006) A common sense approach to defining data, information, and metadata. In: Budin G, Swertz C, Mitgutsch K (eds) Knowledge organization for a Global Learning Society. Proceedings of the ninth international ISKO conference, Vienna. Ergon, Würzburg, pp 51–58
Dextre Clarke SG (2011) ISO25964 A standard in support of KOS interoperability. In: Gilchrist A, Vernau J (eds) Facets of knowledge organization: proceedings of the ISKO UK second biennial conference, London. Emerald, Bingley, UK, pp 129–133
Dogan M (1996) The hybridization of social science knowledge. Libr Trends 45(2):296–314
Dogan M, Pahre R (1990) Creative marginality: innovation at the intersection of social sciences. Westview, Boulder, CO
Feibleman JK (1954) Theory of Integrative Levels. Br J Philos Sci 5(17):59–66, Reprinted in Theory of subject analysis (1985) Chan L M et al (eds) Libraries Unlimited, Littleton. pp 136–142CrossRef
Foskett AC (1996) The subject approach to information, 5th edn. Library Association Publishing, London
Gardin J-C (1965) SYNTOL. Graduate School of Library Service, Rutgers, the State University, New Brunswick, NJMATH
Glushko RJ (ed) (2013) The discipline of organizing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Gnoli C (2007) Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization. Knowl Org 35(2/3):137–149
Gnoli C (2011a) Animals belonging to the emperor: enabling viewpoint warrant in classification. In: Landry P, Bultrini L, O’Neill ET, Roe SK (eds) Subject access: preparing for the future. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 91–100
Gnoli C (2011b) Ontological foundations in Knowledge Organization. Scire 17(2)
Golub K (2014) Subject access to information: an interdisciplinary approach. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara
Gower B (1997) Scientific method: an historical and philosophical introduction. Routledge, London
Green R, Bean CA, Myaeng SH (eds) (2002) The semantics of relationships. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Harris RA (2013) A handbook of rhetorical devices. http://​www.​virtualsalt.​com/​rhetoric.​htm
Hart G, Dolbear C (2013) Linked data: a geographic perspective. CRC, Boca Raton, FLCrossRef
Hjørland B (2002) Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches—traditional as well as innovative. J Doc 58(4):422–462CrossRef
Hjørland B (2008) Core classification theory: a reply to Szostak. J Doc 64(3):333–342CrossRef
Hjørland B (2012) Is classification necessary after Google? J Doc 68(3):299–317CrossRef
Hjørland B (2013) Theories of knowledge organization—theories of knowledge. Knowl Org 40(3):169–181
Hjørland B, Nissen Pedersen K (2005) A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. J Doc 61(5):582–595CrossRef
Hoetzlein R (2007) The organization of human knowledge: systems for interdisciplinary research. Masters thesis, Media Arts and Technology Program, University of California Santa Barbara
Hutchins WJ (1977) On the problem of ‘Aboutness’ in document analysis. J Inform 1:17–35
Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. The Wayne State University Press, Detroit
Kleineberg M (2013) The blind men and the elephant: towards an organization of epistemic contexts. Knowl Org 40(5):340–362
LaBarre K, Tilley CL (2012) The elusive tale: leveraging the study of information seeking and Knowledge Organization to improve access to and discovery of folktales. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 63(4):687–701CrossRef
López-Huertas MJ (2006) Thematic map of interdisciplinary domains based on their terminological representation. The gender studies. In: Budin G, Swertz C, Mitgutsch K (eds) Knowledge Organization for a Global Learning Society. Proceedings of the Ninth International ISKO conference, Vienna. Ergon, Würzburg, pp 331–338
López-Huertas MJ, Torres Ramírez I (2007) Gender terminology and indexing systems: the case of woman’s body. Libri 57:34–44CrossRef
Marcella R, Newton R (1994) A new manual of classification. Gower, Aldershot, UK
Martin TP, Shen Y (2008) Soft mapping between hierarchical classifications. In: Bouchon-Meunier B, Marsala C, Rifqi M, Yager RR (eds) Uncertainty and intelligent information systems. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 155–167CrossRef
Mayr E (1981) Biological classification: toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214:510–516CrossRef
Mazzocchi F, Tiberi M, De Santis B, Plini P (2007) Relational semantics in thesauri: some remarks at theoretical and practical levels. Knowl Org 34(4):197–214
Melgar Estrada LM (2011) Topic maps from a Knowledge Organization perspective. Knowl Org 38(1):43–61
Olson H (2007) How we construct subjects: a feminist analysis. Libr Trends 56(2):509–541CrossRef
Palmer CL (2010) Information research on interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 174–188
Ranganathan SR (1967) Prolegomena to library classification, 3rd edn. SRELS, Bangalore
Repko AF (2012) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R (eds) (2012) Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Rowley JE, Hartley R (2008) Organizing knowledge, 4th edn. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK
Salter L, Hearn A (eds) (1997) Outside the lines : issues in interdisciplinary research. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal
Satija MP (1989) Colon classification, 7th edn. Ess Ess Publications, New Delhi
Shiri A (2012) Powering search: the role of thesauri in new information environments. ASIS&T Monograph series, Medford, NJ
Smiraglia RP (2001) The nature of “a work”: implications for the organization of knowledge. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD
Smiraglia RP (2012) Epistemology of domain analysis. In: Smiraglia RP, Lee H (eds) Cultural frames of knowledge. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 111–24
Soergel D, Lauser B, Liang A, Fisseha F, Keizer J, Katz S (2004) Reengineering thesauri for new applications: the AGROVOC example. J Digit Inform 4(4)
Spärck Jones K (2005) Some thoughts on classification for retrieval. J Doc 61(5):571–81 [Originally published, 1970]CrossRef
Svenonius E (1983) Use of classification in online retrieval. Libr Resour Tech Serv 27:76–80
Szostak R (2008) Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. J Doc 64(3):319–332CrossRef
Szostak R (2011) Complex concepts into basic concepts. J Am Soc Inform Soc Technol 62(11):2247–2265CrossRef
Szostak R (2012a) Classifying relationships. Knowl Org 39(3):165–178
Szostak R (2012b) Toward a classification of relationships. Knowl Org 39(2):83–94
Szostak R (2014a) Classifying the humanities. Knowl Org 41(4):263–275
Szostak R (2014b) Skepticism and Knowledge Organization. In: Babik W (ed) Knowledge Organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the 13th ISKO conference, Krakow. Ergon, Würzburg
Szostak R (2014c) How universal is universality? [Letter to the editor]. Knowl Org 41(6):468–470
Wåhlin E (1974) The AR-complex: adapted systems used in combination with a common reference system. In: Wojciechowski JA (ed) Conceptual basis of classification of knowledge: proceedings of the Ottawa conference. Verlag Dokumentation, Pullach, pp 416–449
Wallach H (2006) Topic modelling: beyond ‘bag of words’. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on machine learning. Pittsburgh
Weisgerber DW (1993) Interdisciplinary searching: problems and suggested remedies. A report from the ICSTI group on interdisciplinary searching. J Doc 49(3):231–254CrossRef
Zeng ML, Zumer M, Salaba A (2011) The functional requirements for subject authority records. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes Report. DeGruyter, Berlin
Zeng ML, Gracy KF, Žumer M (2014) Using a semantic analysis tool to generate subject access points: a study using Panofsky’s theory and two research samples. Knowl Org 41(6):440–451
Metadaten
Titel
The Nature of Knowledge Organization Systems to Serve Interdisciplinarity
verfasst von
Rick Szostak
Claudio Gnoli
María López-Huertas
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30147-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-30148-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_3