Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Knowledge Organization - an introduction

by Dino Karabegand Alexander Sigel

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Yr. 1950

The Computer

Yr. 2000

The Web

Inf5909ssw-kfMotivation 1

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Earlier Now

Inf5909ssw-kfMotivation 2

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Our goal

Organize and study thebackground knowledge

resources

Dino Karabeg, University of Oslo

Knowledge Organization

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Lecture Plan

• What is KO? Approaches in Library and Information Science

• Survey of KO learning resources

• Computer-science Approach 1: Value Matrix

• Computer-science Approach 2: Methodology

University of Oslo Information Design

Birger Hjørland

What is KnowledgeOrganization?

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

KO in the narrow sense

• In the narrow meaning Knowledge Organization (KO) is aboutactivities such as document description, indexing andclassification performed in libraries, bibliographical databases,archives and other kinds of “memory institutions” by librarians,archivists, information specialists, subject specialists, as well asby computer algorithms and laymen.

• Library and Information Science (LIS) is the central disciplineof KO in this narrow sense (although seriously challenged by,among other fields, computer science).

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

KO in the broader sense

• In the broader meaning KO is about the social division ofmental labor, i.e. the organization of universities and otherinstitutions for research and higher education, the structure ofdisciplines and professions, the social organization of media, theproduction and dissemination of “knowledge” etc.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Central claim

KO in the narrow sense cannot develop a fruitful body of

knowledge without considering KO in the broader perspective.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Knowledge Organization

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, works and concepts.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

KO theory

• KO has mainly been a practical activity without much theory

• Practical KO may have been seen as a syntactic rather than asa semantic activity

• The problem is not just to formulate a theory, but to uncovertheoretical assumptions in different practices

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Syntactic vs. Semantic

• Syntactic labor is determined by the form alone of symbols

• Semantic labor is concerned with transformations motivated by the

meaning of symbols

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Document

The documentalists made a generic concept “document” toinclude not only books, articles, “records” and object such asglobes, but any kind of material indexed to serve as some kindof documentation, including pictures, maps and globes. Evenanimals were considered documents (if captured and kept in azoo).

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Information

• Introduced by computer scientists as ‘information processing’

• Belief that Shannon’s “information theory” was a long-neededanswer to a theory also about libraries and scholarly communication

• Documents are more related to the concept and theory of semiotics

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Knowledge

• Knowledge Organization originated in library field ca. 1900

• Henry Bliss: The organization of knowledge and the system ofsciences, 1929

• Bliss understood “knowledge” in the Platonic tradition as “verified,true belief”

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Positivist view of KO

A classification of books to be effective on the practicalside must correspond to the relationships of subject-matters, and this correspondence can be secured onlyas the intellectual, or conceptual, organization is basedupon the order inherent in the fields of knowledge,which in turn mirrors the order of nature.

(John Dewey, from preface to Bliss, 1929)

John Dewey

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Pragmatist view of KO

Cherry trees will be differently grouped bywoodworkers, orchardists, artists, scientistsand merry-makers.

(John Dewey, 1920/1948)

John Dewey

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Theoretical approaches to KO

1. Traditional approach, ca. 1876

2. Facet-analytic approach, ca. 1933

3. Information retrieval tradition (IR), 1950s

4. User oriented and cognitive views, 1970s

5. Bibliometric approaches, 1963

6. Domain analytic approach, 1994

7. Other approaches

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

1. Traditional approach

Melvil Dewey (1851-1931)Dewey Decimal Code (DDC),1876

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

• Principle of controlled vocabulary

• Cutter’s rule about specificity

• Hulme’s principle of literary warrant (1911)

• Principle of organizing from the general to the specific

Principles developed withintraditional approach

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the traditionalapproach

• Traditional (early) KO systems lack theoretical foundation

• Dewey’s interest was not to find an optimal system to support users oflibraries, but rather to find an efficient way to manage library collections

• Natural order –> Scientific classification –> Library classification

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

2. Facet-analyticalapproach

S.R. Ranganathan’s ColonClassification, 1933

• Personality is the distinguishingcharacteristic of a subject

• Matter is the physical material ofwhich a subject may becomposed

• Energy is any action that occurswith respect to the subject

• Space is the geographiccomponent of the location of asubject

• Time is the period associatedwith a subject.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the facet-analytical approach

• The underlying philosophical assumptionthat elements do not change their meaningin different contexts, according to moderntheories of meaning, is problematic.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

3. Information retrievaltradition (IR)

• 1950s

• System driven (systemmakes decision what topresent to user)

• Query transformation

• Google

• Cranfield experiments(evaluating recall andprecision) showedsuperiority of simpleretrieval systems

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the IRapproach

• Ignores users’ cognitive behavior and context.

• Assumption that texts contain all necessary information needed toretrieve them.

• Relevance feedback is based on unverified premises about the users’ability to evaluate relevance.

• Positivist assumptions: It has mainly been based on statisticalaverages, and has neglected to investigate how different kinds ofrepresentation and algorithms may serve different views and interests.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

4. User-oriented views

• Based on empirical studies of users

• Market-oriented

• User determines the relevance

• Knowledge organization done byusers (ex. Folksonomies)

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the user-oriented approach

• Pre-scientific form of knowledge organization

• Positivist averaging (‘one size fits all’): What has been neglected is todevelop different representations of the same documents to servedifferent users.

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

5. Bibliometric approaches

• Based on usingbibliographical references toorganize networks of papers,mainly by bibliographiccoupling

• Science Citation Index,Kessler, 1963

• Google

• Citations provided byhighly qualified subjectspecialists

• Dynamic, self-organizing

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the bibliometricapproach

• Relation between citations and subject relatedness is indirect andunclear (social vs. intellectual organization of knowledge)

• Does not provide logical structure with mutually exclusive andcollectively exhaustive classes

• Explicit semantic relations are not provided

• Bibliometric maps show networks of cooperating authors, whilethesauri show ontological links

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

6. Domain analyticapproach (DA)

• Sociological-epistemological standpoint:The Indexing of a givendocument should reflect theneeds of a given group ofusers or a given idealpurpose.

• Ex. KVINFO, Nynne Koch

• Different points of viewneed different systems oforganization

• Important: Collective viewsshared by many users.Different paradigms exist indomains of knowledge andneed to be identified

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Criticism of the domainanalytic approach

• The kind of information which is judged relevant for a given taskdepends on the theory of the person doing the judgment. Ex.schisophrenia - problematic communication between mother and childor genetic factors?

• Terminology of a field as point of departure. Dilemma – how to selecta terminology?

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

7. Other approaches

• Semiotic

• Critical-hermeneutical

• discourse-analytic

• genre-based

• document typology

• mark up languages

• document architectures

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Selected issues in KO

• How to integrate socio-cultural differences in KO?

• Multilingual issue in KO

• Ethics in KO

• How to represent work-oriented and organizationalenvironments in KO?

• How to integrate different structures on the Web?

• How to organize multidimensional knowledge?

• The creation of interdisciplinary ontologies

• Who should do KO?

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Challenges in transition from bookknowledge to networked electronic media

• Learn from the past

• Free ourselves from the past

• Learn from computer science

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

What KO approaches arerepresented on TED?

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

Computerized knowledge organizationExample: Quanta

Dino Karabeg, OMS Group, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

THANKS!