Master of Library and Information Science degree programme – Knowledge Organization module offered in English. Spring 2007

 

 

Links to other teacher's syllabi:

Jeppe Nicolaisen: JNi Syllabus

Karen Birgitte Philipsson:  KBP syllabus 2007

Jack Andersen Syllabus 2007 English

Piet Seiden:  APRIL, Fr 20   8.30-10.15 Demonstration of Topic Maps software

 

SiteScape: http://it.dbit.dk/forums/kos/dispatch.cgi/_admin

SiteScape (Electronic papers): http://it.dbit.dk/forums/koslitt/dispatch.cgi

 

 

Structure of the course (as taught by BH):

 

I. Functions of knowledge organization (KO)

  1. KO functions and the roles of information professionals.

 

 II. Knowledge organizing processes (KOP),

knowledge organizing systems (KOS) and ”units” in KO

  1. ”Knowledge”, ”information”, ”documents”, ”works” etc as the units being organized.

  2. Subject access points & document composition

  3. Knowledge organizing systems (KOS)

 

 III. Historical and systematic approaches to knowledge organization  

  1. “Traditional approaches” to KO

  2. Facet analytic approaches; IR-approaches; user oriented approaches, bibliometric approaches and domain-analytic approaches.

 

 IV. Interdisciplinary contributions to KO

(epistemology, cognition, language and social organization)

  1. Knowledge organization and theories of knowledge (epistemology)

  2. Theory of concepts and semantics

  3. Theory of language and natural language processing

  4. Discourses, disciplines and other forms of social organization

 

 V. Knowledge organization in different domains

  1. Arts and humanities

  2. Social sciences and psychology

  3. Natural science, medicine & technology

 

 

Short introduction to some basic ideas:

 

I. Functions of knowledge organization (KO)

The basic function of KO is to assist users to find documents and information based on their own premises. However, knowledge is not neutral or objective, but something produced to serve certain goals and interests. Users have to know about different kinds of "bias" and to be able to select information that correspond to their own interests and needs.

 

 II. Knowledge organizing processes (KOP),

knowledge organizing systems (KOS) and ”units” in KO

There are many kinds of knowledge organizing systems (KOS), for example, classification systems, thesauri, bibliometric maps and ontologies. It is important to know both a) what such systems have in common, their general theoretical basis b) how they differ from each other.

 

All KOS such are selections of concepts which are organized according to their semantic relations (e.g. broader terms and narrower terms). They may also be termed semantic tools. The same kinds of basic questions are common to all KOS: How do we decide which concepts are important? How do we define them? How do we determine their relation to other concepts (i.e. the structure in KO)?

 

KOS do not only represent objective, neutral, technical tools. The way their concepts are understood, selected and organized reflect a particular conceptualization of a domain. In order to evaluate both manual indexing and algorithmic solutions it is important to consider which conceptualization a given solution represent (and thus which conceptualizations have been relatively suppressed). Such conceptualizations are related to broader social and cultural issues.

 

 III. Historical and systematic approaches to knowledge organization  

What theoretical and methodological approaches exist concerning how to organize knowledge? In other words, what are the "paradigms" in KO? Different approaches may reflect different views, for example, in relation to whether KO is a mechanical (syntactic) process or a process of  interpretation (of meaning), whether it is neutral and objective or goal-oriented and subjective, whether there is a need for information professionals or the computer can do the work, and what kinds of qualifications are needed by information professionals. 

 

 IV. Interdisciplinary contributions to KO

(epistemology, cognition, language and social organization)

Knowledge Organization is not just something the LIS-profession can do without considering research in other domains, for example, computer science, linguistics and natural language processing, theory of knowledge, theory of social organization etc. In particular is an understanding of the nature of knowledge, cognition, language and social organization decisive for the understanding of KO and thus to be able to design, evaluate and use knowledge organizing processes and knowledge organizing systems.

    Two different ways of understanding knowledge confront each other: 1) The "positivist" understanding of knowledge as neutral and objective and based on purely empirical, purely rational or a combination of empirical and rational methods. 2) The "pragmatic" (or critical) understanding of knowledge as something facilitating certain ways of acting while relatively limiting other ways of acting. Knowledge is not neutral or objective but connected to certain interests, goals and values. Knowledge is not gained just by empirical and rationalist methods, but also by considering contextual issues and  by considering the consequences of different theories.

    These two ways of understanding knowledge is at play in information science as well as in cognitive sciences, linguistics and sociology.

 

 V. Knowledge organization in different domains

This part of the course looks at how different domains have organized their knowledge, how criteria for organization have developed historically, what kind of controversies exists and how they are related to different worldviews and epistemologies.

    Different domains or subject fields represent different fields of social practice, why an examination of KO in different domains is a demonstration on how different social practices have formed their documents, special languages, conceptual systems and information needs. Because there are often different interests at play, may domains often reflect different, somewhat conflicting views on how their knowledge should ideally be organized. (We are now back to functions of KO: to assist users choosing the right information).

    There should be a circularity in the course: When you understand the general theory, you are better equipped to examine KO in a special domain. And when you examine KO in a special domain, you deepen your understanding of the general theory.

 

Goals and expectations in teaching KO

Ideas for writing term papers

 

 

Birger Hjørland’s Syllabus 2007 English

All lessons and workshops take place in room C5.10

 

Tuesday the 6th of February

10.00-12.00

Common introduction (Jack Andersen (JAN), Jeppe Nicolaisen (JNi), Birger Hjørland (BH))  (lesson 0)

What do you need to know in order to be able to organize knowledge?

 

Lifeboat reading:

Competency in KO

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/competency_in_ko.htm

Short introduction to some basic ideas

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/master_of_LIS_Copenhagen_spring%202007.htm

 

 

 

13.00-14.30: BH (lesson 00):

Introducing lecture on the Danish/Nordic interpretation of the field of Knowledge Organization and LIS. 

 

Knowledge Organization: Danish/Nordic perspective

 

 

I. Functions of knowledge organization (KO)

 

Friday February, 9.

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 1-2)

Functions of Knowledge Organization and the roles of information professionals

 

Readings:

Broughton, Hansson, Hjørland and López-Huertas (2005, 1-3); Jaenecke (1994); Kiel (1994).

 

Lifeboat readings:

Knowledge organization (KO), functions of

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/knowledge_organizat_functions.htm

 

 

II. Knowledge organizing processes (KOP),

knowledge organizing systems (KOS) and “units” in KO

 

Tuesday. February, 13

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 3)

”Knowledge”, ”information”, ”documents”, ”works” etc as the units being organized.

 

Readings:

Hjørland (2004a+c); Smiraglia (2001, 1-13 + 121-133)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Units or entities in knowledge organization (KO). What is being organized?

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/units_in_knowledge_organization.htm

 

(lesson 4)

Subject access points & document composition

 

Readings

Hjørland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001

 

Lifeboat readings:

Subject access points (SAPs): http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/subject_access_points.htm

 

Friday February, 16.

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 5-6)

Kinds of knowledge organizing systems (KOS)

 

Readings

Hodge (2000 kap. 1); Hjørland (2007, 367-370).

 

Lifeboat readings:

Knowledge organization systems (KOS) http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/knowledge_organization_systems.htm

 

III. Historical and systematic approaches to knowledge organization

Friday February, 16.

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 7-8)

”Traditional” approaches to knowledge organization

 

Readings:

Miksa (1998)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Approaches to knowledge organization.

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/approaches_to_knowledge_organiza.htm

 

"Traditional approaches" to knowledge organization (KO) http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/traditional_approaches_to_knowle.htm

Intellectual or scholarly approaches to knowledge organization (KO)

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/intellectual_or_scholarly_approa.htm

Intuitive or common sense approaches to knowledge Organization (KO)

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/intuitive_approaches_to_ko.htm

 

Business- and management like approaches to knowledge organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/business_or_management_like_app.htm

 

 

Tuesday February, 20

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 9)

User oriented and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization

 

Readings:

Andersen (2004, 139-144); Dahlberg (1992, 125 + 145 ); Frohmann (1992); Neelameghan et al (1992)

Lifeboat readings:

User and User Studies in Knowledge Organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/user_and_user_studies.htm

 

Cognitive views in knowledge organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/cognitive_view_in_knowledge_orga.htm

 

(lesson 10)

Facet-analytic approaches to knowledge organization

 

Readings:

Mills (2004); Xiao (1994).

 

Lifeboat readings:

Facet, facet analysis and the facet-analytic paradigm in knowledge organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/facet_and_facet_analysis.htm

 

Tuesday February, 20

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 11-12)

Challenges from IR, automatic indexing and Internet search enginees

 

Readings:

Ellis (1996, Chapter 1, pp.1-22); Sparck Jones (2005); Saeed & Chaudry (2001)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Information retrieval (IR) as challenger to Knowledge Organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/HISTORY%20&%20THEORY/information_retrieval%20approach.htm

Automatic Indexing: Automatic Indexing

 

Friday February, 23. 

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 13)

 

Bibliometric approaches to KO (mainly covered by JNi)

 

Readings:

Schneider & Borlund (2004); Börner, Chen & Boyack (2003)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Bibliometric Knowledge Organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/bibliometric_knowledge_organizat.htm

 

(lesson 14)

Domain analytic approaches to KO

 

Readings:

Hjørland (2004b)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Domain Analysis as approach to Knowledge Organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/domain_analysis.htm

 

 

IV. Interdisciplinary contributions to KO

(epistemology, cognition, language and social organization)

 

Friday February, 23. 

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 15-16)

Theory of knowledge. ”Positivist” versus ”pragmatist” view on knowledge organization.

 

Readings:

Hjørland & Nissen Pedersen (2005); Sparck Jones (2005).

 

Lifeboat readings:

Classification theory according to the domain-analytic point of view

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/Hjørland%20&%20Nissen_2005_summary%20of%20arguments.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday February, 27

Workshop 1

Assignment

 

 

Friday March, 2  

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 17-18)

Theory of concepts, semantics and semantic relations

 

Readings:

Smith et al. (2005)

Hjørland (2007)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Concept in Knowledge Organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/concept_in_knowledge_organizatio.htm

Semantics

http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/semantics.htm

Semantic relations

http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/CONCEPTS/semantic_relations.htm

Generic relation

http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/CONCEPTS/generic_relation.htm

Synonymy

http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/CONCEPTS/synonymy.htm

Homonym

http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/CONCEPTS/homonym.htm

 

Friday March, 2 

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 19-20)

Theory of language and natural language processing

 

Readings:

Liddy (2003)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Linguistic aspects of Library and Information Science

http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/linguistic_aspects_of_informatio.htm

 

Natural Language Processing (NLP) http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/natural_language_processing.htm

 

 

 

Tuesday March, 6

10.30-12.15 BH (lesson 21-22)

Discourses, disciplines and other forms of social organization

 

Readings:

Dogan (2001)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Disciplines, specialties, professions and discourses in knowledge organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/disciplines_in_knowledge_organiz.htm

 

Terminology and languages for special purposes

Readings:

Temmerman (1997).

 

Lifeboat readings:

Terminology and knowledge organization

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/terminology_and_knowledge_organization.htm

 

 

V. Knowledge organization in different domains

 

Friday March, 9.

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 23-24)

Arts and humanities

 

Readings:

Ørom (2003)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Arts & humanities in general

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20DOMAINS/arts__humanities_in_general.htm

Arts http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20DOMAINS/arts.htm

Music: http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/Domains/Music.htm

 

Tuesday March, 13

13.00-14.45 BH (lesson 25)

Social sciences and psychology

 

Readings:

Wallerstein (1996, 1-69)

 

Lifeboat readings:

Social Sciences in general

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20DOMAINS/social_sciences.htm

 

lesson 26

Natural science, medicine & technology

Readings:

Ereshefsky (2000, pp. 1-49); Nelson et al. (2001); Cohen, Starvi & Hersh (2004).

Lifeboat readings:

Biology

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20DOMAINS/biology.htm

Medicine http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/SPECIFIC%20DOMAINS/medicine.htm

 

 

Friday March, 16  Time: 9.30

Workshop 2

Assignment

 

(BH finished his teaching)

 

 

 

Readings (course literature):

The readings consist of regular papers and entries in "Lifeboats". The lifeboats provide definitions, extracts, analysis and references, why they function as "a reader's guide" to the literature.

 

The Lifeboats are available at:

http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/home.htm (Epistemological Lifeboat)

http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/home.htm (Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization)

http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/home.htm (Core Concepts in Library and Information Science)

The articles & books are available as indicated below:

C

= printed collection

*

= Electronic reservoir  (Sitescape)

http://it.dbit.dk/forums/koslitt/dispatch.cgi  Username: Xxxxxx  Password: Xxxxxxxxxxx

S

= Semester shelve
 

All other papers are available on the web, url is provided. In some cases they are only available from RSLIS-computers.

 

 

 

*

Abrahamsen, K. T. (2003). Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 144-169

 

Agre, P. (1997). The End of Information & the Future of Libraries. Progressive Librarian, No. 12/13, Spring/Summer 1997 (http://libr.org/pl/12-13_Agre.html)
 

 

Agre, P. (1998). Designing Genres for New Media: Social, Economic, and Political Contexts. In: CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting CMC and Community, Steve Jones, ed,  Sage (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/genre.html)

C

Albrechtsen, Hanne & Annelise Mark Pejtersen (2003). Cognitive Work Analysis and Work Centered Design of Classification Schemes. Knowledge Organization, 30 (3 & 4), 213-227

*

Andersen, J. (2002). The Role of Subject Literature in Scholarly Communication: An Interpretation Based on Social Epistemology. In: Journal of Documentation, Vol. 58, No 4, pp. 463-481 

 

 

Andersen, J. (2004). Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science, 2004. (Chapter 7.3.3.: Request, user and cognitive oriented indexing, pp. 139-144). Available: http://www.db.dk/dbi/samling/phd/jackandersen-phd.pdf 

 

Andersen, J. (2005). Information Criticism: where is it? Progressive Librarian, no. 25, pp. 12-22 http://www.libr.org/PL/25_Andersen.html

*

Andersen, J. (2007). The Collection and Organization of Written Knowledge. TO APPEAR IN HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH ON WRITING (ED. C. BAZERMAN)

S

Bates, M.J. (2005). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In: K.E. Fisher and S. Erdelez (eds.) Theories of Information Behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today: pp. 1-24.
 

C

Bazerman, C. (2003). Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People I: What Texts Do and How they Do It. Bazerman C. og P. Prior (red.). Erlbaum.

C

Beghtol, C. (1986). Semantic validity: Concepts of warrant in bibliographic classification systems. Library Resources & Technical Services, 109-125.

*

Berkenkotter & Huckin (1993). Rethinking Genre from a Sociocognitive Perspective. Written Communication, Vol. 10, No. 4, 475-509

C

Blair, D C & Kimbrough, S O (2001). Exemplary document: a foundation for information retrieval design. Information Processing & Management, 38. 363 – 379.

 

Broughton, Vanda, Hansson, Joacim, Hjørland, Birger and López-Huertas, Maria J. (2005), “Knowledge organisation: Report of working group 7”, in Kajberg, L. and Lørring L. (Eds), European Curriculum Reflections on Education in Library and Information Science, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, pp 133-148 available at: http://biblis.db.dk/uhtbin/hyperion.exe/db.leikaj05

(Chapter 7 alone: Chapter 7.pdf).

S

Börner K., Chen C.M., Boyack K.W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37, 179-255.

Figures in color:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030623065959/http://www.asis.org/Publications/ARIST/Vol37/BornerFigures.htm

 

*

Cohen, A.M., Starvi, P.Z., & Hersh, W.R. (2004). A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of Evidence-Based Medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73, 35-43.

 

Crowston, K. & Kwasnik, B. (2003). Can document-genre metadata improve information access to large digital collections? Library Trends http://crowston.syr.edu/papers/libtrends03.pdf

*

Dahlberg, I. (1992). Cognitive paradigms in knowledge Organization, International Classification, 19, 125+145 (2 pages!)

*

Dogan, M. (2001). Specialization and recombination of specialties in the social sciences. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Balters (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. New York: Elsevier. (Pp. 14851–14855)

S

Ellis, D. (1996). Progress and Problems in Information Retrieval. London: Library Association Publishing. Chapter  1, pp. 1-22.

C

Ereshefsky, M. (2000).The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 1-49

S

Fisher, K.E. & Erdelez, S. (eds.) Theories of Information Behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

*

Frohmann, B. (1992). Cognitive paradigms and user needs. IN: Neelameghan, A.; Gopinath, M. A. Raghavan, K. S. & Sankaralingam, S. P. (Eds). Cognitive paradigms in knowledge organization. Second international ISKO conference. Madras, August, 26.-28 1992. Madras: Sarda Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science. (Pp. 35-50).

C

Frohmann, B. (1990). Rules of indexing: a critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory.  Journal of Documentation, 46(2), pp.  81-101.

 

 

Garshol, L M (2004) Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic maps! Making sense of it all. Journal of Information Science, 30 (4). 378-391. Available online at: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tm-vs-thesauri.html

 

Gilchrist, A (2003). Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies - an etymological note. Journal of Documentation 59(1), 7-18. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2780590101.pdf

 

Hansson, Joacim (2005). Hermeneutics as a Bridge between the Modern and the Postmodern in Library and Information Science. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 102-113. Available at http://www.hb.se/bhs/personal/joacim/p102.pdf

C

Hansson, J. (1996). In My Mind’s Eye – In Search of the Mimetic Relation Between a Library Classification System and its Social Discourses. I: Ingwersen, P. & N.O.Pors (eds.). Proceedings: Colis 2: Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration in Perspective

 

Hjørland, B. (2002). Principia Informatica. Foundational Theory of Information and Principles of Information Services. IN: Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Ed. By Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, and Pertti Vakkari. Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA: Libraries Unlimited. (Pp. 109-121).  Manuscript available at: http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/principia_informatica.htm

 

Hjørland, B. (2004a). Basic Units in Library and Information Science. Presentation given at the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Annual Meeting, November 12-17, 2004, Providence, Rhode Island, Monday, November 15, 3:30-5pm. Session: Document, Record, Work: The Basic Units of Analysis in Information Studies. (56 slides=12 pages) Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050515175620/http://www.db.dk/bh/Units+in+IS_B.ppt

*

Hjørland, B. (2004b). Domain analysis in information science. IN: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 1-7. Online:

 

Hjørland, B. (2004c). How to define a scientific term such as “A Work”. Presentation given at American Society for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting, November 12-17, 2004, Providence, Rhode Island, Sunday, November 14, 3:30-5pm Session: Interdisciplinary Concepts of the “Work” Entity. (40 slides=8 pages)  http://web.archive.org/web/20060208024736/http://www.db.dk/bh/Nature+of+_A+work_.ppt

*

Hjørland, B. (2007). Semantics and Knowledge Organization. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 367-405.

*

Hjørland, B.; Fjordback Søndergaard, T. & Andersen, J. (2005). UNISIST Model and Knowledge Domains. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 1-14.

*

Hjørland, B. & Hartel, J. (2003). Afterword: Ontological, epistemological and sociological dimensions of domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4): 239-245.

 

Hjørland, B. & Kyllesbech Nielsen, L. (2001). Subject Access Points in Electronic Retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and technology, 35, 249-298. http://www.db.dk/binaries/subject%20access%20points.pdf

 

Hjørland, B. & Nissen Pedersen, K. (2005). A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61(5), 582-597. http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/Hjorland%20&%20Nissen.pdf Summary of arguments: http://www.db.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/Hjørland%20&%20Nissen_2005_summary%20of%20arguments.htm

 

Hodge, G. (2000). Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital libraries. Beyond traditional authority files. Washington, DC: the Council on Library and Information Resources. Chapter 1 http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/contents.html

 

Informationsordbogen. http://www.informationsordbogen.dk/ (IN DANISH)

*

Jaenecke, P. (1994). To what end knowledge organization? Knowledge Organization, 21(1),  3-11. (For reply see Kiel, 1994).

 

Jones, S, Gatford, M, Do, T & Walker, S (1997). Transaction logging. Journal of Documentation, 53 (1). 35 – 50. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldAbstractOnlyArticle/Pdf/2780530104.pdf

 

Karjalainen, A. et. al. (2000). Genre-Based Metadata for Enterprise Document Management. Proceedings of the 33 th Hawai’ian Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui 4-7 January 2000 http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~ankarjal/HICSS2000.pdf

C

Kiel, E. (1994). Knowledge organization needs epistemological openness: A reply. Knowledge Organization, 21(3), 148-152.

 

Kowalski, G.J. & Maybury, M.T. (2000). Information storage and retrieval systems: Theory and implementation. 2nd ed. Norvel, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chapter 6: Document and term clustering, pp. 139-163. Also available from RSLIS network at: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/danbibsko/Doc?id=10052649

*

Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Kap. 3: pp. 70-120).

*

Liddy, E. D. (2003). Natural Language Processing. IN: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker. (Pp. 2126-2136).

 

Markey, Karen (2006). Forty Years of Classification Online: Final Chapter or Future Unlimited? Cataloging and Classification Quarterlyl, Vol. 42, No.3/4, pp. 1-63. Available at http://www.haworthpress.com/store/E-Text/View_EText.asp?sid=B073NXCS58MW8K1P3RC6NULP9WQ02KRF&a=3&s=J104&v=42&i=3%2F4&fn=J104v42n03%5F01

S

Miksa, F. (1998). The DDC, the Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-Modern Library. Albany, NY: Forest Press.

 

*

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, pp. 151-167

*

Mills, J. (2004). Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval. Library Trends, 52(3), 541-570.

*

Neelameghan, A.; Gopinath, M. A. Raghavan, K. S. & Sankaralingam, S. P. (1992). Introduction IN:  Cognitive paradigms in knowledge organization. Second international ISKO conference. Madras, August, 26.-28 1992. Madras: Sarda Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (pp. xiii-xvi).

* C

Nelson, S. J.; Johnston, W. D. & Humphreys, B. L. (2001). Relationships in medical subject headings (MeSH). IN:  Relationships in the Organization of knowledge. Ed. by C. A. Bean & R. Green. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (pp. 171-184).

 

Nicolaisen, J. (2004). Social Behavior and Scientific Practice - Missing Pieces of the Citation Puzzle. (Kap. 4 & 5: pp. 87-159). http://www.db.dk/dbi/samling/phd_dk.htm

*

Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and and Technology, 41: 609-641.

 

 

Nielsen, M L (2001). A framework for work task based thesaurus design. Journal of Documentation, 57 (6), 774 – 797. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldAbstractOnlyArticle/Pdf/2780570604.pdf

C

Nielsen, M L (2004). Task-based evaluation of associative thesaurus in real-life environment. Proceedings of the ASIST 2004 Annual Meeting; "Managing and Enhancing Information: Cultures and Conflicts", Providence, Rhode Island, November 13 – 18.  437- 447.

 

NLM Classification http://www.nlm.nih.gov/class/nlmclassintro.html

C

Olson, H. (1999). Cultural Discourses of Classification: Indigenous Alternatives to the Tradition of Aristotle, Durkheim and Foucault. In: Advances in Classification Research: Proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Workshop, Vol. 10

C

Olson, H. (1998). Mapping beyond Dewey’s Boundaries. Library Trends, 47 (2), 233-254

 

*

Orlikowski, W & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practice in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 547-574.

 

Pepper, S & Moore, G (2000). XML topic maps (XTM) 1.0. Available online at: http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/

 

Pepper, S (2002). The TAO of Topic Maps. Available online at: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html

*

Päivärinta, T. (2001). The concept of genre within the critical approach to information systems development. Information and Organization, 11, pp. 207–234

 

 

Ray, E T (2003). Learning XML. Chapter 2: Markup and core concepts. 49-77. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly. Available online at: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/learnxml2/chapter/ch02.pdf

 

 

Rehm, G. (2002). Towards Automatic Web Genre Identification. A Corpus-Based Approach in the domain of Academia by Example of the Academic’s Personal Homepage. Published in the Proceedings of the Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, January 7–10, 2002 http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g91063/pdf/HICSS35-rehm.pdf

 
C
 
Saeed, H. & Chaudry, A. S. (2001). Potential of bibliographic tools to organize
knowledge on the Internet: The use of Dewey Decimal Classification scheme
for organizing Web-based information resources. Knowledge Organization, 28(1), 17-26.

 

Sâauperl, A. (2005). Subject cataloging process of Slovenian and American catalogers. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 713-734. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2780610602.pdf

 

 

Schneider, J. & Borlund, P. (2004). Introduction to bibliometrics for construction and maintenance of thesauri: methodical considerations. Journal of Documentation, 60(5), 524-549. http://www.db.dk/binaries/schneider_borlund%20(2004).pdf 

C

Schweiger, R. , Hoelzer, S. , Rudolf, D. , Rieger, J. & Dudeck, J. (2003). Linking clinical data using XML topic maps. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 28, 103-115.

C

Smiraglia, R. P. (2001). The nature of “A Work”. Implications for the Organization of Knowledge. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Pp. 1-13, 121-133.

 

 

Smith, B.; Ceusters, W. & Temmerman, R. (2005). Wüsteria. Proceedings of Medical Informatics Europe. Available: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Wuesteria.pdf

 

 

Sparck Jones, K. (2005). Revisiting classification for retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61(5), 598-601. [Reply to Hjørland & Nissen Pedersen, 2005] http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/Sparck%20Jones_reply%20to%20Hjorland%20&%20Nissen.pdf

 

 

Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Introduction: Tyrants, Heroes, and Victims in Information Design, pp. 1-23. In: Tracing Genres through Organizations. A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262194910chap1.pdf

 

 

Spinuzzi, C. (2004). Describing Assemblages: Genre Sets, Systems, Repertoires, and Ecologies. Computer Writing and Research Lab. White Paper Series: #040505-2 http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/files/040505-2.pdf

 

 

Temmerman, R. (1997). Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology. Hermes. Journal of Linguistics, 18, 51-90. Available at: http://hermes2.asb.dk/archive/FreeH/H18_04.pdf (Alternatively Temmerman 2000, chapter 1-3).

S

Temmermann (2000). Towards new ways of terminology description. The sociocognitive-approach. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing company. Chapter 1, 2 and 3.

*

Vaughan, M. W. & Dillon, A. (2006). Why structure and genre matter for users of digital information: A longitudinal experiment with readers of a web-based newspaper. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Volume 64, Issue 6 , Pages 502-526

S

Wallerstein, I.. (1996). Open the Social Sciences, report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 

 

Wiegand, W. A. (1998). The "Amherst method". The origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification System. Libraries & Culture, 33(2), 175-194. Available at:  http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~landc/fulltext/LandC_33_2_Wiegand.pdf

C

Wilson, P. & Robinson, N. (1990). Form Subdivisions and Genre. Library Resources and Technical Services, 34(1), pp. 36-43

*

Vickery, B C (1997). Ontologies. Journal of Information Science 23(4). 277-286.

C

Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication: the rise of system in American management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (chapter 3)

*

Xiao, Y. (1994). Faceted classification - a consideration of its features as a paradigm for knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 21(2), 64-68.

*

Ørom, A. (2003). Knowledge Organization in the domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 128-143.

 

Electronic reservoir: Sitescape for full-text electronic papers (papers marked * above):  http://it.dbit.dk/forums/koslitt/dispatch.cgi
 

 

 

 

 

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 25-05-2007

HOME