Brief Communication: What Is Knowledge Organization?†
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 85 Brief Communication Brief Communication: What is Knowledge Organization?† Ingetraut Dahlberg Am Hirtenberg 13, 64732 Bad König, Germany, <[email protected]> Ingetraut Dahlberg started work on thesauri and classification in the early sixties. She developed her concept theory in 1972 together with her work on the establishment of a universal classification system of knowledge fields, the Information Coding Classification, published in 1982. In 1974, she founded the journal International Classi- fication, now known as Knowledge Organization, and was its editor for 23 years. She also founded the German So- ciety for Classification in 1977 and chaired it until 1986. In 1989, the International Society for Knowledge Or- ganization was founded, and she served as its president until 1996. In 1980, she founded the INDEKS Verlag, which was taken over by Ergon Verlag in 1997. Dahlberg, Ingetraut. Brief Communication: What is Knowledge Organization? Knowledge Organization. 41(1), 85-91. 27 references. Abstract: As an introduction, the circumstances leading to the foundation of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) are outlined and the prerequisites for the formal and conceptual description of the scope of knowledge organization (KO) are laid out, fol- lowed by the explanation of the scheme as used in the bibliography of KO. An overview is provided of the tasks and activities of this discipline; thereafter and in conclusion an urgent appeal is made to ISKO and to all active scientific societies with a view to establishing KO as an autonomous scientific discipline within the science of science, as well as an indication is given of urgently required tasks. Received and Accepted 28 June 2013 Keywords: knowledge, knowledge organization, concepts, classification, ISKO † This paper had been requested by Peter Ohly to be given on the occasion of the German ISKO General Assembly on July 5, 2012. It has been revised in the meantime to be included in the next proceedings volume among the papers of the Potsdam ISKO Conference, March 19-20, 2013. The English translation was finalized in cooperation with Prof. Dr. Herbert Eisele, France. 1.0 How it all came about So on July 22th 1989, ISKO, the International Society for Knowledge Organization, was set up. Its name resulted from a On February 12, 1977, a group from the registered Society compromise, since there is no appropriate English equiva- for Documentation (including Martin Scheele and Robert lent for “Wissensordnung,” which mattered to us. How- Fugmann) founded the Society for Classification in Frankfurt ever, the title of a book on The Organization of Knowledge in order to promote required research on the philosophi- and the System of the Sciences (Bliss 1929) led us to hope that cal and system-relevant fundaments of the methodologi- the German alternate term “Wissensorganisation” allowed cal domain of librarians and documentalists. The found- in English the innovative “Knowledge Organization,” ing assembly protocol mentions only one mathematician, which to our great surprise found universal acceptance. In author of a book on automatic classification (Bock 1974). the meantime this brilliant term has become so hackneyed Twelve years later, half of the now 200 members ap- that now, almost 25 years later, the question seems to arise peared to be mathematicians or statistically-oriented peo- what actually to understand thereby. In order to qualify for ple who took over, which led to the departure of those the title of this paper it may be proper to return to the less interested in statistics to constitute a new body exclu- roots, viz. to the customary notion of classification, which sively dedicated to concept-oriented research—going also covers a variety of meanings. Indeed, this polyseme refers: international1. 1) to “classis facere” (arrange in classes); 2) as well as to https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2014-1-85 Generiert durch IP '170.106.33.19', am 25.09.2021, 19:04:50. Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig. 86 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 Brief Communication assigning to a class, i.e. the attribution of classes to real it conforms to general acceptation, including the coinci- objects (referents), that which is generally understood by dence with extant definitions in dictionaries and encyclo- classifying. Moreover, the term comprises also the result pedias. of 1), i.e. the classification system 3) and the result of 2) The most substantial or essential characteristics indi- i.e. the classified object 4). In addition, “classification” also cates the hierarchical relationship of an object, e.g. a ward- qualifies 5) a didactic discipline (subject of study). robe is a piece of furniture; a swan is a large water-bird; a In German, it is possible to associate “knowledge” computer is a data-processing machine, thus bringing out (meaning of course “generally accepted knowledge”) with in the first relative place respective hyperonyms, i.e. the “organization” since “organization” includes objects, higher class concepts (piece of furniture, water-bird, data- whereas in some other languages “organization” refers processor). There are also characteristics which specify a primarily to corporate bodies. This notwithstanding, the given case etc., so as to discover the respective hyponym conjunct finally met general acceptance. (lower-class concept), which can also be represented oth- “Generally accepted knowledge” carries the seal of sci- erwise, leading down the whole range of the conceptual ence, resulting from verifiable dicta or else from inter- hierarchy till to the individualizing characteristics of space subjective agreement in form of generally accepted defini- and time. When Kant speaks of analytical or synthetic tions as opposed to subjective knowledge acquired by ex- judgements, he refers to relative implicit characteristics of perience or learning. In the latter meaning, knowledge a hierarchy as against the specifying characteristics of a serves as a kind of spiritual warrant, which means that sub-concept. The determination of necessary characteris- reminiscence depends on remembered data, which fact tics, i.e. knowledge elements, which aggregate to a knowl- explains why people differ in opinion on identical phe- edge unit constitutes a concept-forming event with the nomena, for each relies on different angles of vision and possible result that concepts of similar or analogous char- items of recollection. Generally speaking, the smaller the acteristics can form an inter-relationship between con- shared basis of experience AND education, the more dif- cepts. ficult the understanding. Our knowledge condenses itself However, this kind of relationship leads to concepts in concepts by their informative content. Concepts are relying on purely formal aspects (similar/dissimilar; inclu- therefore knowledge units and form the elements of sys- sive/exclusive etc.) which are helpful for some reasons, tems of knowledge (Wissensordnungen) (cf. infra). but for the construction of a conceptual classification scheme four different content-determinant types of rela- 2.0 First prerequisite: concepts as elements tionships of concepts are needed: of systems of knowledge – the abstraction relationship of genus-species True understanding of concepts has been jeopardized – the partitive relationship of whole/part-of hitherto by the ignorance of their very nature, viz. that – the complementary or opposition relationship they form the constituents of any knowledge organization – the function-related relationship, generating a sort of that also leads to the formation of classes. The linguistic syntax; aspect hinders most colleagues from perceiving the indis- pensable analytical aspect of concept formation and con- Only the third relationship does not provide hierarchies cept apprehension. Therefore, a handy concept theory is and the fourth only sometimes, as opposed to the first needed. My endeavours to expose such a theory in a two. number of publications (e.g. Dahlberg 1974a,1979, 1987, The function-related, grammatical or syntax relationship 2009) and make it plausible have been vain so far to my shows up e.g. in the ventilation of a subject field when great regret. I nevertheless venture again to show how to proceeding by an element location plan, as indicated under define knowledge units hereafter. the next section; in this case, each subject-field includes a Take any object, concrete or abstract, and figure out its logical subject and a logical predicate with possible com- essential characteristics by formulating “is”-statements. plements. The hierarchy proceeds from the partitive rela- The synthesis of all thus determined characteristics under tionship since the substructures of a subject-field are its a name or a code depicts the object’s content in an abbre- components. The complementary or opposition relation- viated form and leads to designate the respective object. ship applies to the opposition of objects and/or their The definition of a concept is therefore the resumé of qualities. content-determinant characteristics. I have often pictured It may be noted that the four relationships produce this in a triangle: on top respective referent, left corner the definitions whenever these appeal to genus-species rela- characteristics, right corner its name or designation. The tionships or whole-part, or else opposition relationships or truth-proof of this method depends obviously on how far yet function relationships.