DOCSLIB.ORG

Knowledge Organization: an Epistemological Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Knowledge Organization: an Epistemological Perspective Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 49 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Chaim Zins Department of Information ScienceHuman Services, Bar-Ilan University of Haifa Email: [email protected]. Dr. Chaim Zins is an information scientist, at the Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan Uni- versity. He is a former member at the Department of Human Services, University of Haifa. Dr. Zins' current research is focused on knowledge organization, foundations of information science, knowl- edge management, information and referral services, and information retrieval. Zins, Chaim. (2004). Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective. Knowledge Or- ganization, 31(1). 49-54. 11 refs. ABSTRACT: This philosophical essay explores the epistemological foundations of knowledge organization and discusses im- plications for classification research. The study defines the concept of “knowledge,” distinguishes between subjective knowl- edge (i.e., knowledge as a thought in the individual’s mind) and objective knowledge (i.e., knowledge as an independent ob- ject), establishes the necessity of knowledge organization in the construction of knowledge and its key role in the creation, learning, and dissemination of knowledge, and concludes with implications for the development of classification schemes and knowledge maps. Overview second stage, I will discuss the relationship between subjective knowledge and objective knowledge. (No- Scholars and practitioners in the field of knowledge te that “subjective knowledge” is equivalent here to organization rarely stop to reflect and ponder upon the knowledge of the subject or the individual kno- the philosophical foundations of their field of exper- wer, and “objective knowledge” is equivalent here to tise. Nevertheless, as Budd (2001) argues, epistemol- knowledge as an object or a thing. They are not re- ogy is important for Library and Information Science lated here to truthfulness and arbitrariness, which are (LIS). This philosophical essay aims to explore the usually attached to the concepts of “objective knowl- epistemological foundations of knowledge organiza- edge” and “subjective knowledge”). The two modes tion, and to discuss implications for the development of knowledge – as a thought and as an object – are of classification schemes and knowledge maps. Epis- interrelated. In fact, objective knowledge is an exter- temology is the branch of philosophy that is focused nal subjective knowledge. Furthermore, the realiza- on the theory of knowledge. It explores the possibil- tion of objective knowledge necessitates subjective ity of knowledge. The study delves into the con- knowledge; meaning, that objective knowledge be- struction of knowledge. It exposes the key role of comes real and meaningful only to the individual knowledge organization in shaping the way we per- who is aware of it by his or her own subjective mind. ceive the knowledge domain, and thus establishes its The third stage will focus on the argument that indispensable contribution to the creation, learning, subjective knowledge is a product of a synthesis. Ba- and dissemination of knowledge. sed on this argument I will argue, in the fourth stage, The philosophical argumentation is composed of that subjective knowledge requires two types of pre- six stages. First, I will differentiate between the two experiential intellectual elements, in addition to the approaches to defining “knowledge,” namely, knowl- substantial, sensory or intellectual data, which com- edge as a thought and knowledge as an object. In the prise its content. These are the pre-experiential rele- 50 Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective vant constitutive concepts and a pre-experiential (subject) knows that P (proposition). It is the reflec- structure, which represents logical, linguistic, ex- tive and/or the expressed content of what a person planatory or probabilistic relationships among them. thinks that he or she knows. (Note that the contents These two elements shape the way we perceive the of our reflective and/or expressed thoughts are in the world and construct knowledge. (Note that I use the form of propositions). Propositional knowledge is di- term “pre-experiential,” rather than “a priori” in or- vided into inferential and non-inferential knowledge. der to stress that these two intellectual elements do Non-inferential propositional knowledge refers to di- not depend on the specific experience. Yet it is based, rect intuitive knowledge. For example, very we often but rather, are based on previous experiences. The we use general abstract terms, such as “love”, “jus- term “a priori,” usually refers to intellectual ele- tice”, “soul”, and “god”. Usually which we intuitively ments, which are not dependent on any sensory ex- understand them. When we draw some conclusions perience, while the term “pre-experiential” refers he- based on these terms, our non-inferential knowledge re to intellectual elements, which are not based on turns into inferential knowledge. Inferential knowl- the present experience; still they are based on previ- edge is a product of inferences. The field of knowl- ous experiences). edge organization, which is a branch of information In the fifth stage I will claim that objective knowl- science, as well as any academic field, is composed of edge classification schemes, such as the Library of inferential propositional knowledge. In fact, this pa- Congress Classification scheme (LCC), affect our per, as well as any scientific paper, is composed of in- cognitive maps. Note, however, that this claim is still ferential propositional knowledge. It starts with a subject to empirical scientific verification. proposition, and then it develops it layer upon layer Finally, in the sixth stage, I will claim that the epi- until its final conclusions. stemological analysis helps us to distinguish between Two definitions of knowledge. Still, what is two kinds of structures: conceptual cognitive pre- knowledge? There are two basic approaches to define experiential structures and external recorded or do- the concept of “knowledge,” knowledge as a thought cumented structures. Consequently, there are two in the individual’s (or subject’s) mind, and knowl- major structuring approaches: rationalistic (i.e., phe- edge as an object or a thing. The first approach con- nomenological or conceptually based) structuring ditions the knowledge in the individual’s mind. methods, and empirical structuring methods. Identi- Knowledge is a thought that can be characterized as a fying and formulating these methods set an agenda justified true belief. According to Bernecker and for classification research. Dretske, (2000), in traditional epistemology there This is the outline of the philosophical argumenta- are three individually necessary and jointly sufficient tion. Now, let us study it in details. conditions for propositional knowledge: justifica- tion, truth, and belief. The epistemological literature Meanings of “knowledge” has thoroughly debated these conditions (e.g., Get- tier, 1963, Lehrer (1997), and Audi, 2003). One of Ty p e s o f k n o w l e d g e . The concept of “knowledge” is the most influential papers was written by Edmund used in various meanings and contexts. In traditional Gettier (Gettier, 1963). Gettier posited a hypotheti- epistemology there are three main kinds of knowl- cal situation intended to call into question the defini- edge: Practical knowledge, knowledge by acquaint- tion of knowledge as completely justified true belief, ance, and propositional knowledge (Bernecker and and to argue for a softened position. Without delving Dretske, 2000). Practical knowledge, which is usually into the epistemological literature, it seems sufficient known as ‘knowing how’, refers to skills. Skills are for our purposes to characterize subjective proposi- functional abilities (e.g., riding a bike, and driving a tional knowledge by the justifiable certainty that the car). The distinction between knowledge by acquaint- individual’s own thoughts are true. ance and propositional knowledge, which is also The second approach ascribes an independent ob- known also as descriptive knowledge, was initially of- jective existence to knowledge. Knowledge is a col- fered by Russell (1912). Knowledge by acquaintance lection of concepts, arguments, argumentations, and is direct non-mediated knowledge of objects. This is rules of inference. They are true and exist independ- the knowledge that a person has of external physical ently, not depending on the subjective knowledge of objects, by means of direct sense data, or direct the knowing individual. The implications of this ap- knowledge about his or her own self. Propositional proach to LIS were recently discussed by Hjorland knowledge comes in the form of ‘knowing that’;; S (2004). Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 51 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Karl Popper’s “Worlds”. The reader who is famil- One can answer these questions assuming meta- iar with the philosophy of Karl Popper probably physical assumptions on the ontological status of finds a resemblance between the two approaches to different types of entities (like Karl Popper, for in- defining “knowledge” and the concepts “World 2” stance). I prefer to remain on the practical level. The- and “World 3.”. Popper (1967, 1972, 1977) differenti- re is no meaning to knowledge that no one knows. ates among three
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implications of Big Data for Knowledge Organization. Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey
    Implications of big data for knowledge organization. Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey To cite this version: Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey. Implications of big data for knowledge organization.. Knowledge Organization, Ergon Verlag, 2017, Special issue on New trends for Knowledge Organi- zation, Renato Rocha Souza (guest editor), 44 (3), pp.187-198. hal-01489030 HAL Id: hal-01489030 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01489030 Submitted on 23 Apr 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License F. Ibekwe-SanJuan and G. C. Bowker (2017). Implications of Big Data for Knowledge Organization, Knowledge Organization 44(3), pp. 187-198 Implications of big data for knowledge organization Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan Geoffrey C. Bowker Aix Marseille Univ, IRSIC, Marseille, France University of California, Irvine, USA. [email protected] [email protected] Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan is Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, University of Aix-Marseille in France. Her research interests span both empirical and theoretical issues. She has developed methodologies and tools for text mining and information retrieval. She is interested in the epistemology of science, in inter-disciplinarity issues and in the history of information and library science.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Knowledge Organization: Analysis and Structures in the Networked Environment
    Principles of knowledge organization: analysis and structures in the networked environment 0. Abstract 1. Context of discussion 2. Definition of principles Knowledge organization in the networked environment is guided by standards. Standards Principles are laws, assumptions standards, rules, in knowledge organization are built on principles. For example, NISO Z39.19-1993 Guide judgments, policy, modes of action, as essential or • Knowledge Organization in the networked environment is guided by standards to the Construction of Monolingual Thesauri (now undergoing revision) and NISO Z39.85- basic qualities. They can also be considered goals • Standards in knowledge organization are built on principles 2001 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set are tw o standards used in ma ny implementations. or values in some knowledge organization theories. Both of these standards were crafted with knowledge organization principles in mind. (Adapting the definition from the American Heritage Therefore it is standards work guided by knowledge organization principles which can Existing standards built on principles: Dictionary). affect design of information services and technologies. This poster outlines five threads of • NISO Z39.19-1993 Guide to the Construction of Monolingual Thesauri thought that inform knowledge organization principles in the networked environment. An • NISO Z39.85-2001 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set understanding of each of these five threads informs system evaluation. The evaluation of knowledge organization systems should be tightly
    [Show full text]
  • Biases in Knowledge Representation: an Analysis of the Feminine Domain in Brazilian Indexing Languages
    Suellen Oliveira Milani and José Augusto Chaves Guimarães. 2011. Biases in knowledge representation: an analysis of the feminine domain in Brazilian indexing languages. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 94-104. Suellen Oliveira Milani ([email protected]) and José Augusto Chaves Guimarães ([email protected]) Sao Paulo State University, Marília, SP, Brazil Biases in Knowledge Representation: an Analysis of the Feminine Domain in Brazilian Indexing Languages† Abstract: The process of knowledge representation, as well as its tools and resulting products are not neutral but permeated by moral values. This scenario gives rise to problems of biases in representation, such as gender issues, dichotomy categorizations and lack of cultural warrant and hospitality. References on women’s issues are still scarce in the literature, which makes it necessary to analyze to what extent the terms related to these particular issues are inserted in the tools in a biased way. This study aimed to verify the presence of the terms female, femininity, feminism, feminist, maternal, motherly, woman/women within the following Brazilian indexing languages: Subject Terminology of the National Library (STNL), University of Sao Paulo Subject Headings (USPSH), Brazilian Senate Subject Headings (BSSH) and Law Decimal Classification (LDC). Each term identified in the first three alphabetical languages generated a registration card containing both its descriptors and non-descriptors, as well as scope notes, USE/UF, RT, and BT/NT relationships. As for the analysis of LDC, the registration card was filled out by following the categories proposed by Olson (1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Is Epistemology Tainted?1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Universidade de Lisboa: Repositório.UL Disputatio Lecturer 2015 Is Epistemology Tainted?1 Jason Stanley Yale University BIBLID [0873-626X (2016) 42; pp. 1-35] Abstract Epistemic relativism comes in many forms, which have been much discussed in the last decade or so in analytic epistemology. My goal is to defend a version of epistemic relativism that sources the relativ- ity in the metaphysics of epistemic properties and relations, most sa- liently knowledge. I contrast it with other relativist theses. I argue that the sort of metaphysical relativism about knowledge I favor does not threaten the objectivity of the epistemological domain. Keywords Knowledge, vagueness, relativism. In Stanley 2005 (henceforth KPI), I defend the view that knowledge is interest-relative. I also there defend the view that all important epistemic properties and relations are interest-relative. I was and am sympathetic to knowledge first epistemology. The interest-relativity of the epistemic domain is inherited from the dependence of all im- portant epistemic properties and relations on knowledge. This is the distinctive version of epistemic relativism I endorse. The view I defend is explicitly relativist. Relativist views are widely considered to be problematic. It is therefore important for me to distinguish it from relativist views that I also reject. Chapter 7 of KPI distinguishes my view favorably from truth-relativism about knowledge, as defended in John MacFarlane’s work. Chapter 8 of KPI distinguishes my view favorably from Delia Graff Fara’s thor- oughgoing interest-relativity about empirical properties, which un- derlies her theory of vagueness.
    [Show full text]
  • KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Contents
    Knowl. Org. 35(2008)No.2/No.3 KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Official Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation Contents Preface to Special Issue María J. López-Huertas. Some Current Research Questions “What is Knowledge Organization” in the Field of Knowledge Organization ........................113 Guest Editors: Ia C. McIlwaine and Joan S. Mitchell............................... 79 Claudio Gnoli. Ten Long-Term Research Questions Feature in Knowledge Organization ............................................137 Interview with Ingetraut Dahlberg Rebecca Green. December 2007.................................................................. 82 Relationships in Knowledge Organization.....................150 Articles Marcia Lei Zeng. Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS)......................160 Birger Hjørland. What is Knowledge Organization (KO)?........................ 86 Joseph T. Tennis. Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework................................................ 102 Knowl. Org. 35(2008)No.2/No.3 KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION KO Official Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Dr. Jens-Erik MAI, Faculty of Information Studies, University
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Man in the Measure, Reuben Abel
    1 The Basis of Knowledge Chapter 2: Man in the Measure: A Cordial Invitation to the Central Problems of Philosophy, , Reuben Abel pgs. 18 –21 and 24 - 27 “The Basis of Knowledge” IT IS CONVENIENT to pin the "problem of knowledge" on Plato, for he regarded knowledge as a mysterious kind of union between a knower and the known. Contemplation for Plato was a kind of love; and, just as the lover physically grasps his beloved, so does the knower spiritually apprehend the eternal Forms. The metaphor, of course, is older than Plato, for it was Adam who "knew Eve his wife," and the suggestive phrase "carnal knowledge" still recalls that ancient tradition. But if we take the metaphor too literally-if we ask how knowing involves grasping the immaterial-if we assume that Plato's Forms are quietly waiting out there to be seized-then we have allowed a poetic usage to create a philosophic problem. When a man gets to know something (as John Dewey remarks), the process is no more mysterious than when he gets to eat something. Man's curiosity is as natural to him as his hunger. But philosophers have usually been more puzzled by epistemology than by digestion. Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description Of course "knowledge" is not all that simple. We may begin here with Bertrand Russell's distinction between "knowledge by acquaintance" and "knowledge by description" Acquaintance is direct and immediate; it consist of “raw feels.” We are acquainted with a person , or with a place, or with a food.
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION CRITICISM: WHERE IS IT? by JACK ANDERSEN
    INFORMATION CRITICISM: WHERE IS IT? by JACK ANDERSEN oughly speaking, one may say that the practitioners of literary theory are the literary critics; that is, those reviewing and critiquing works of fiction. But where, one may ask, are the critics of the functionality and legitimacy of knowledge Rorganization systems? That is, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias and search engines – all systems that in some way or another mediate the recorded part of society and culture. Such knowledge organization systems are also the professional tools of librarians. Due to this fact, we should expect that librarians have a lot to say about the roles and doings of these systems in the mediation of society and culture, but it is hard within the public arena to trace and hear the critical voices of librarians grappling with knowledge organization systems. We are used to reading and hearing the voices of cultural critics, social critics and literary critics debating social and cultural issues – the kinds of criticism with well-established histories and adherents that exist in society. Jürgen Habermas (1996) argued, in his book on the structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere, that art criticism, social criticism and literary criticism developed in public spaces like the coffee houses, saloons and tischgesellschaften and became established schools of thought in written genres such as journals and newspapers. They became organized in the sense that criticism developed particular forms of communication in order to talk and write about social, political and cultural issues in society. These particular modes of communication were maintained because of their appeal to and belief in rational discussion within the public sphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Role of Knowledge Organization in Scholarly Communication: an Inquiry Into the Intellectual Foundation of Knowledge Organization
    Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization Jack Andersen PhD thesis from Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization Jack Andersen PhD thesis from Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark CIP – cataloguing in publication Andersen, Jack Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization / Jack Andersen. Copenhagen: Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science, 2004. x, 257 p. + appendixes. Available: http://www.db.dk/dbi/samling/phd_dk.htm ISBN: 87-7415-278-5 ISBN 87-7415-278-5 © Copyright Jack Andersen 2004 All rights reserved Vidensorganisationens rolle i videnskabelig kommunikation: En undersøgelse af vidensorganisationens teoretiske grundlag Jack Andersen Ph.d.-afhandling fra Institut for Informationsstudier Danmarks Biblioteksskole, København For Simon Peter and Iben In dreams begin responsibilities Delmore Schwartz Abstract In this dissertation I analyze the relationship between social organization and knowledge organization. This analysis is carried out on two levels. The first level consists of three chapters each examining particular perspectives of the relationship. First, in terms of an examination of how communication technologies have shaped forms of social organization, I argue how knowledge organization is constituted by social organization. Second, I further situate knowledge organization in light of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere and argue that this theory can be viewed as a fundamental model of knowledge organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowing How: an Empirical, Functionalist Approach
    Syracuse University SURFACE Philosophy - Dissertations College of Arts and Sciences 5-2013 Knowing How: An Empirical, Functionalist Approach David Joseph Bzdak Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/phi_etd Recommended Citation Bzdak, David Joseph, "Knowing How: An Empirical, Functionalist Approach" (2013). Philosophy - Dissertations. 74. https://surface.syr.edu/phi_etd/74 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts and Sciences at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy - Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Only very recently has the subject of knowledge how and its relation to propositional knowledge, or knowledge that, been given much attention by philosophers. In recent debates on the subject, positions tend to divide around the question: is knowledge how (KH) reducible to, or a kind of, knowledge that (KT), or are they fundamentally distinct categories of knowledge? I argue for the latter view, and I base my argument on the claim that KH and KT mental states serve fundamentally different functional roles – specifically, KT is representational, while KH is practical. I develop my positive, Functionalist account of KH in Chapter 6. Earlier chapters deal with background and methodological issues. In Chapter 1, I consider why philosophers, until recently, have tended to ignore the study of KH and have focused almost exclusively on KT. I argue that the omission is due to unexamined, tacit assumptions about the relation between mind and body, and the relation between knowledge and representation. In Chapter 2, I argue for an empirical approach to the debate, and develop a folk theory of KH to use as a starting point for the investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell B. -Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description- PAS Xew $Eries
    Russell B. -Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description- PAS Xew $eries. v. Xl l9{O-{{, pp {O8-{28 Reprinted by Gourtesy of the Editor of the Aristotelian $ociety: 19{(D.t9{ | www;aristotel iansociety.org. uk. 108 KNOWI,EDGEBY ACQUAINTANCEAND'BY DESCRIPTION.109 But the associations and natural extensions of tho word acquaittttr,ttceare different from thoso of the wotd prasantulion, To begin with, as in most cognitive words, it is natulnl bo eoy that I am acquainted with an object even at motnents whon it \I.-KNOWLET)GE By ACQUAINTANCE AND KNOW._ is not actually before my mind, provided it has been beforc lrry LEDGE BY DDSCRIPTION. mind, and will be again whenever occasion orises. Thie iB tlro which I am said to know thst 2+2 = 4 ovott 3y Bnnruxn Russpr,r,. sarne sense in when I aur thinking of something else. In the secotttl plrtcrt, Tttu object of the following paper is to consicrerwhat it is thub the worcl acguaintanceis designed to emphasize,lnoro tltutr tlttr we lrnow in cases where we know plopositions aboul; ,, 1;he word 'presentation,the relational character of tlto fnob witlr .what so-and-so" without knowing who or the so_ancl_sois. which we are concerned. There is, to my mind, a dungor that, I'or exarnple, I knolv that the candidate who gets mosb votes in speaking of presentatiorts,we may so emphasize the ob,iecb will be elected, though I do not l<now who is the cand.idate as to lose sight of the subject. The result of this is either to who will get nrost votes.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: a Perspective from the Philosophy of Science
    information Article Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science Birger Hjørland Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen, 8 Karen Blixens Plads, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark; [email protected] Abstract: Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, “match” techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as “paradigms”. No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO. Keywords: information retrieval; knowledge organization; philosophy of science; classification; knowledge organization systems; ontologies; Kuhnian paradigm theory; pragmatism Citation: Hjørland, B. Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science. Information 1. Introduction 2021, 12, 135.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Knowledge Organization (KO)?
    What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? By Birger Hjørland Royal School of Library and Information Science, 6 Birketinget, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Email: [email protected] (Digital photo) Birger Hjørland, MA in psychology and PhD in Library and Information Science. Professor in Knowledge Organization (KO) at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen since 2001. Professor in KO at the University College in Borås, Sweden 2000-2001. Research librarian and coordinator of computer based information services at the Royal Library in Copenhagen 1978-1990. Taught information science at the Department of Mathematical and Applied Linguistics at the University of Copenhagen 1983-1986. 1974-1978 associate professor at RSLIS, and 1990-2000 head of department. He has published several papers on KO, including about 11 papers in the journal Knowledge Organization . 1 What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? By Birger Hjørland Abstract: Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms . 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 and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: “What is knowledge organization?” differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning.
    [Show full text]