Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Study

C. Vickery and S. R. Ranganathan both advanced methods of creating schemes for classification and facet analysis of documents. In his accessible and well-written 1960 text, Vickery acknowledges his debt, and indeed the debt owed by the CRG, to Ranganathan’s work. Yet, because of the time of this writing, and its purpose, we see a very different view of the theory of faceted classification from Vickery, when compared to the overall oeuvre of S. R. Ranganathan (beyond the 1967 Prolegomena). And it is Vickery’s 1960 and 1966 works, not Ranganathan’s, that are often used as the introduction to (and often the end of the education in) faceted classification and facet analysis. The question surfaces, is there more than one conception of faceted analysis and faceted classification? We must take as an assumption that neither Vickery nor Ranganathan are wrong in their conception, but what if they differ? Others have examined the question of the definition of faceted classification, often with an eye to contemporary interpretations of facet analysis, not as an explicit comparison between these two bodies of thought (e.g., La Barre, 2004; see also Axiomathes 18(2)).

There are several commonalities that obtain between Vickery and Ranganathan which can be discerned by the informed reader. For instance, there are commonalities in how Vickery and Ranganathan talk about citation order. However, Vickery’s discussion omits many details contained in Ranganathan’s. This brings us to our question. What does Vickery’s theory of faceted classification look like compared to Ranganathan’s? Does Vickery create a different theory, and hence lineage, of faceted classification in the 1960s?

In an effort to make sense of both Ranganathan’s work and Vickery’s we modeled the process involved in classification using the IDEF0 (Integrated Definition for Function Modeling) formalism. This allows us to see five distinct parts of the classification process: actions, inputs, outputs, mechanisms, and constraints. When we model theories of classification this way we can then compare them by asking whether or not they contain the same actions, inputs, outputs, mechanisms, and constraints. This allows us to see how the conceptions held by Vickery and by Ranganathan are similar, and how they are different.

This work is ongoing, but preliminary analysis shows that while there is some cross-over, Vickery’s exposition of faceted classification and facet analysis were more parsimonious than Ranganathan’s. This leaves us with questions about decision-making when proceeding through the process of facet analysis and creating schemes for faceted classification. Similarly, Ranganathan’s work is left undone (primarily with rules for interpreting postulates and principles, but there are other places as well).

We will present the findings on the modeling of these two conceptions of faceted classification and facet analysis. We propose two ways to frame this discussion: by describing 1) what commitments we make when we assume a common model of facet analysis and classification, and 2) what we assume from identifying distinct theories of faceted classification and facet analysis. We will also identify gaps in our understanding of these two conceptions, as well as, strengths and weaknesses of the modeling technique.

This paper outlines three information organization frameworks: library classification,social tagging, and boundary infrastructures. It then outlines functionality of these frameworks. The paper takes a neo-pragmatic approach. The paper finds that these frameworks are complementary, and by understanding the differences and similarities that obtain between them, researchers and developers can begin to craft a vocabulary of evaluation.

Knowledge organization in the networked environment is guided by standards. Standards in knowledge organization are built on principles. For example, NISO Z39.19-1993 Guide to the Construction of Monolingual Thesauri (now undergoing revision) and NISO Z39.85-2001 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set are two standards used in many implementations.Both of these standards were crafted with knowledge organization principles in mind.Therefore it is standards work guided by knowledge organization principles which can affect design of information services and technologies. This poster outlines five threads of thought that inform knowledge organization principles in the networked environment. An understanding of each of these five threads informs system evaluation. The evaluation of knowledge organization systems should be tightly linked to a rigorous understanding of the principles of construction. Thus some foundational evaluation questions grow from an understanding of standards and principles: on what principles is this knowledge organization system built? How well does this implementation meet the ideal conceptualization of those principles? How does this tool compare to others built on the same principles?

Three paths of interdisciplinary work shape the future of classification research.
emergence, encyclopedism, and ecology. Each of these, in method, approach, and in substantive inquiry outline both the boundaries and the intersections of the many fields that contribute to our overall understanding of classification research. This paper outlines some high level claims of this work, ties it to current research and offers some theoretical applications of these paths.

In order to facilitate subject access interoperability a mechanism must be built that allows the different controlled vocabularies to communicate meaning, relationships, and levels of extension and intension so that different user groups using different controlled vocabularies could access collections across the network. Switching languages, the tools of controlled vocabulary compatibility, consist of a single layer that does not allow for a flexible control of the semantic levels of meaning, relationships, and extension or intension. This paper proposes a multilayered conceptual framework wherein the levels of meaning, relationships and extension and intension are each controlled as individual parameters, rather than in a single switching language.

Social tagging, as a particular type of indexing, has thrown into question the nature of indexing. Is it a democratic process? Can we all benefit from user-created tags? What about the value added by professionals? Employing an evolving framework analysis, this paper addresses the question: what is next for indexing? Comparing social tagging and subject cataloguing; this paper identifies the points of similarity and difference that obtain between these two kinds of information organization frameworks. The subsequent comparative analysis of the parts of these frameworks points to the nature of indexing as an authored, personal, situational, and referential act, where differences in discursive placement divide these two species. Furthermore, this act is contingent on implicit and explicit understanding of purpose and tools available. This analysis allows us to outline desiderata for the next steps in indexing.

This paper adds two analytical devices to domain analysis. It claims that in order for domain analysis to work cumulatively transferable definitions of domains must be written. In order to establish this definition the author provides two axes to consider: Areas of Modulation and Degrees of Specialization. These axes may serve as analytical devices for the domain analyst to delineate what is being studied and what is not being studied in a domain analysis.

This paper proposes a preliminary classification of knowledge organization research, divided amongepistemology, theory, and methodology plus three spheres of research: design, study, and critique. Thiswork is situated in a metatheoretical framework, drawn from sociological thought. Example works are presented along with preliminary classification. The classification is then briefly described as a comparisontool which can be used to demonstrate overlap and divergence in cognate discourses of knowledgeorganization (such as ontology engineering).

In this article, we describe the development of an extension to the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to accommodate the needs of vocabulary development applications (VDA) managing metadata schemes and requiring close tracking of change to both those schemes and their member concepts. We take a neo- pragmatic epistemic stance in asserting the need for an entity in SKOS modeling to mediate between the abstract concept and the concrete scheme. While the SKOS model sufficiently describes entities for modeling the current state of a scheme in support of indexing and search on the Semantic Web, it lacks the expressive power to serve the needs of VDA needing to maintain scheme historical continuity. We demonstrate preliminarily that conceptualizations drawn from empirical work in modeling entities in the bibliographic universe, such as works, texts, and exemplars, can provide the basis for SKOS extension in ways that support more rigorous demands of capturing concept evolution in VDA.

What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer systems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? This paper posits that a theoretical work that weds both formal and associative (structural and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. This paper lays out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classification theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. This paper builds on the interpretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, this paper then outlines classification theory’s critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these critiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.

This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.

This paper outlines the purposes, predications, functions, and contexts of information organization frameworks; including: bibliographic control, information retrieval, resource discovery, resource description, open access scholarly indexing, personal information management protocols, and social tagging in order to compare and contrast those purposes, predications, functions, and contexts. Information organization frameworks, for the purpose of this paper, consist of information organization systems (classification schemes, taxonomies, ontologies, bibliographic descriptions, etc.), methods of conceiving of and creating the systems,and the work processes involved in maintaining these systems. The paper first outlines the theoretical literature of these information organization frameworks. In conclusion, this paper establishes the first part of an evaluation rubric for a function, predication, purpose, and context analysis.

With the advent of Internet-based technologies for information organization, many groups have constructed their own indexing languages. Biologists, Library and Information Science practitioners, and now social taggers have worked together to create large and many times complex indexing languages. In this environment of diversity, two questions surface: (1) what are the measurable characteristics of these indexing languages, and (2) do measurements of these indexing languages speciate along these characteristics? This poster presents data from this exploratory work.

Describes three tensions in the theoretical literature of indexing: chief sources of evidence indexing, process of indexing (rubrics and methods), and philosophical position of indexing scholarship. Following this exposition, we argue for a change in perspective in Knowledge Organization research. Using the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics as a metaphor, we advocate for a shift to a more descriptive, rather than the customary prescriptive, approach to the theoretical and empirical study of indexing, and by extension Knowledge Organization.

This paper outlines a model of conceptual change in indexing languages. Findings from this modeling effort point to three ways meaning and relationships are established and then change in an indexing language. These ways: structural, terminological, and textual point to ways indexing language metadata can aid in managing conceptual change in indexing languages.

Introduction. We define a collection of metrics for describing and comparing sets of terms in controlled and uncontrolled indexing languages and then show how these metrics can be used to characterize a set of languages spanning folksonomies, ontologies and thesauri.
Method. Metrics for term set characterization and comparison were identified and programs for their computation implemented. These programs were then used to identify descriptive features of term sets from twenty-two different indexing languages and to measure the direct overlap between the terms.
Analysis. The computed data were analysed using manual and automated techniques including visualization, clustering and factor analysis. Distinct subsets of the metrics were sought that could be used to distinguish between the uncontrolled languages produced by social tagging systems (folksonomies) and the controlled languages produced using professional labour.
Results. The metrics proved sufficient to differentiate between instances of different languages and to enable the identification of term-set patterns associated with indexing languages produced by different kinds of information system. In particular, distinct groups of term-set features appear to distinguish folksonomies from the other languages.
Conclusions. The metrics organized here and embodied in freely available programs provide an empirical lens useful in beginning to understand the relationships that hold between different, controlled and uncontrolled indexing languages.

This paper describes a conceptual framework and methodology for managing scheme versioning for the Semantic Web. The first part of the paper introduces the concept of vocabulary encoding schemes, distinguished from metadata schemas, and discusses the characteristics of changes in schemes. The paper then presents a proposal to use a value record–similar to a term record in thesaurus management techniques–to manage scheme versioning challenges for the Semantic Web. The conclusion identifies future research directions.