Plantilla E Instrucciones De Publicación Para Los Autores

The Future of Knowledge Organization and Information Organization

H. Peter Ohly

International Society for Knowledge Organization ISKO, [email protected]

Abstract for ISKO and KO in the future? What is your ideal On the 13th conference of the International Society for picture of ISKO and KO of the future? The results Knowledge Organization (ISKO) 2014 in Krakow a were inter alia that to ameliorate its standing not only panel was held on ‘The Future of Knowledge Organi- the fundamentals have to be worked out but also its zation and ISKO’. Here a synopsis with additional diverse application fields and openness to new ob- information and more dense presentation is given by jects and methods. a panelist. The main items were: What is knowledge Keywords: ISKO. Knowledge Organization. KOS. organization (KO)? What will be the most challenging Library Science.

1. Introduction and Comm., and Claudio Gnoli, Webmaster of

th ISKO, Univ. Pavia, Mathematics Department The 13 international ISKO conference titled Library, Natural Scientist. ‘Knowledge Organization in the 21st Century: Between Historical Patterns and Future Pros- The discussion was amended by the audience, pects’ was held in Krakow in May 2014. With namely: Ingetraut Dahlberg, Founder of German respect to the 25th Anniversary of ISKO and Classification Society and of ISKO, PhD in Lin- Knowledge Organization, Rebecca Green, As- guistics, Grant Campbell, Univ. Western Ontario, sistant Editor for the Dewey Decimal Classifica- Faculty of Inform. and Media Studies, Assistant tion at Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), Professor, Dagobert Soergel, University of Buf- moderated a panel on ‘The Future of Knowledge falo, Department of Library and Information Stu- Organization and ISKO’. She understood this dies, Prof. Emeritus, Inform. Studies, Maria Lo- panel as a platform for discussing knowledge pez-Huertas, ISKO President 2006-2010, Univ. organization in the past, present, and future Granada, School of Library and Information within ISKO. The statements of the panelists Science, Professor, Jill McTavish, Librarian at and the audience were worked out and publis- London Health Sciences Centre, Ontario, and hed in the bi-monthly Journal of the International Laura Ridenour, University of Wisconsin– Society for Knowledge Organization (KO) by Milwaukee, MA. Green (2014). Here a synopsis with additional The International Society for Knowledge Organi- information and a more dense presentation of zation (ISKO) denotes itself “the premier interna- the published part will be given by one of the tional scholarly society devoted to the theory panelists. and practice of knowledge organization” (1). Participants of the panel were: Joseph Tennis, ISKO charter lists as ISKO’s aims: “…to promote Univ. Washington, Information School, Assoc. research, development and application of all Professor (new ISKO President 2014-2018), methods for the organization of knowledge in Vera Dodebei, Chair of the Brazilian ISKO, Univ. general or of particular fields by integrating es- Fed. Rio de Janeiro, Graduate Program in Lib. pecially the conceptual approaches of classifica- Sci., PhD in Comm. and Culture, Rosa San Se- tion research and artificial intelligence. The So- gundo, Chair of the Spanish ISKO, Univ. Carlos ciety stresses philosophicological, psychological III Madrid, Director o. DeLib. and Inform. Sci., and semantic approaches for a conceptual order Associate Professor, Wiesław Babik, Chair of of objects…” (2). With reference to these aims the Polish ISKO, Jagiellonian Univ. Krakow, Inst. Rebecca Green posed more or less these three of Inform. and Lib. Sci, Assoc. Professor, Peter questions to the panelists (3): Ohly, ISKO President 2010-2014, Social Scien- 1. What is knowledge organization (KO)? tist (formerly at GESIS – Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany), Amos David, 2. What changes do you foresee in the futu- Chair of the French ISKO, Lorraine Univ. Nancy, re that will prove to be the most challenging Res. Lab. ComSci. and Appl., Prof. Inform. Sci. for ISKO?

3. What is your ideal picture of what the IS- communities, e.g., artificial intelligence, neuros- KO of the future could be? How do we get cience. there? Dahlberg sees KO as a subdiscipline of the Science of Science, what brings it in my view on 2. What is knowledge organization (KO)? a critical meta level to other sciences but under- Green introduces this question by a critical sta- lines in my understanding as well its more des- tement: “In Dewey [Decimal Classification] the criptive research orientation (like Scientometrics) rule of application instructs usto class a work on, and less its fundamental approach. Hjørland say, a thesaurus of architecture – that is, the instead sees KO as a meta science like the making of a thesaurus applied to architecture – science of science as it has a unique focus, but with other works on architecture. But developing also with a dependency from subject knowledge a thesaurus on architecture doesn’t make the (2013).(4) Dahlberg underlines that the applica- developer an architect.” Grant Campbell takes tion fields of KO are not only in the Information up this statement directly by stressing out, that Sciences but also in all subject fields (domains) disciplines and domains have their own terms, needing taxonomies (classification systems of practices, traditions, canonical texts but KO is objects). She mentions as examples: statistics, outside of special domains and has more an commodities, utilities, weapons, patents, museo- iterant role by communicating information bet- logy, however with the above stated limitation of ween different groups. This reminds me to the classification aims. In KO the scientific objects fiction of a ‘Troubadour of Knowledge’ as de are ‘(all kinds of) knowledge’ and the scientific Beer (2010) had stated it for the knowledge wor- methods here are the ‘organization’ principles, ker in a new knowledge age with reference to that create order of the given kinds of knowledge ‘Le Tiers-Instruit’ by Michel Serres (1997). In so and its activities. far this might be already a position for the third Babik states the many different definitions of question. ‘knowledge organization’ and recommends ety- Dahlberg explains the origin of the naming of mological definitions of its constituent parts ‘Knowledge Organization’, which is not at least a ‘knowledge’ and ‘organization’. Only then it be- part of the name of the society which was foun- comes more clear what is meant with ‘knowled- ded in 1989 in Germany. They took up the wor- ge organization’. In my opinion this includes time ding ‘Organization of Knowledge [in libraries]’ of and culture dependent definitions. Like Dahlberg Henry Bliss (1933) but changed it into the shor- he sees the subjects of KO as compositions of ter ‘Knowledge Organization’, what is in German knowledge. Here information is seen as a raw an allowable collocation of words. It should des- material for knowledge, but it becomes its mea- cribe order activities in classification. In other ning from the viewpoint of its organization. As a languages this might be misunderstood, as or- science of [various aspects of] knowledge KO is ganization refers to institutions and business for him indispensable to science, education and aspects. The earlier journal International Classi- research, as well as to information science. fication of the German Society for Classification, Ohly complains that ISKO as a society does not which was founded mainly by Dahlberg, was attract a well-defined established profession, like accordingly renamed to Knowledge Organization ‘Knowledge Organizer’ or ‘Semantic Worker’. but the coding system for the bibliography re- But it has its main application and acceptance in mained exactly the same. library science. When the focus of KO should be In so far Ohly regards ISKO and KO within its more general one should speak of ‘arranging of historical and structural boundaries. It emerged knowledge’ instead of ordering, classification or from library science cataloging. But the GfKl organization, what has some connotation with (German Society for Classification) was founded rigidity and stability. How far extraction, connec- in contrast to the DGD (German Society for Do- tion, reasoning, or interpretation of knowledge cumentation), with the GfKl as more theoretical should be included in the focus of ISKO has and methodological oriented and less stress on carefully to be considered. Are these only some documentation praxis. In contrast the ISKO was aspects of knowledge, which are treated well in founded by the non-statistician part of GfKl as a other disciplines or are these inevitable implica- society with less orientation to business informa- tions of classification? For him the definition of tics. Hereby problems are arising as it lost its KO is missing: the economic dimension (high connections to computer-oriented fields, inclu- quality information implies this), the scientific ding knowledge management. Hence ISKO and background of the applied field (which changes KO have to claim a focus that is not already the principles of classification) (5), and the so- occupied by other established scientific neighbor ciological aspects (which are relevant for the acceptance of ordering systems, for the social

Ohly, H. Peter. The Future of Knowledge Organization and Information Organization. En XII Congreso ISKO España y II Congreso ISKO España-Portugal, 19-20 de noviembre, 2015, Organización del conocimiento para sistemas de información abiertos. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 3 dynamics of use and misuse, and for the deve- often not identified as a field in itself, as basic lopment of social software models). logical components of knowledge (classes, hierarchies, terms, etc.) are often taken for granted. Soergel as well asserts that most ISKO mem- What is lacking is a common, consistent termi- bers come out of a library and bibliographic sys- nology in this field. He prefers the view of ‘di- tems tradition, what “presents somewhat a ba- mensions of KO’ (ontological, epistemological, rrier to bring the KO expertise to the much wider pragmatic, etc.). arena where it is applicable and where it would be beneficial”. But he rates documentary infor- As summary of the question ‘What is KO?’ we mation only as a part of the information landsca- can state that the main focus is order activity or pe. As other applications of high importance, classification. As such it has a meta view on the Soergel names: electronic health records (EHR), subjects it deals with and has some universal scientific data, research networking systems, aspects like Science of Science. Nevertheless business information systems, linked data as a the focus must be seen wider than classification format. “To enable transfer of ISKO expertise in library science and take into account wider into these wider application areas and the asso- application areas not at least in informatics ciated communities requires a re-orientation. though the bridge building function and concep- ISKO members need to work in other areas …”. tual dimension seem to be its main merit. López-Huertas (2014) and Rodríguez- Bárcenas/López-Huertas (2013) refer e.g., to the 3. What changes do you foresee in the importance of KO in decision making processes. future that will prove to be the most Even more impetus on management relations of challenging for ISKO? KO is given by the report of the ISKO-Maghreb chapter (Sidhom, 2014a) with respect to the Already in the previous chapter when the panel themes of its annual conferences: “The challen- tried to shape KO some statements concerned ge of integration of business applications in de- future challenges and recommendations for the materialized flows is fundamental to avoid bre- future: the itinerant role of KO (Campbell), the aks in the information processing. The other lacking computer orientation, application orienta- challenge is to manage in a unified way the who- tion, economic and social aspects, professiona- le relationship with the customer or user, regard- lization (Ohly), clear terminology (Babik, Gnoli), less of the exchange modes he used, and re- opening to more than library tradition and diver- gardless of the requested resources: data, in- sification (Soergel, Gnoli), semantic web cha- formation, knowledge, know-how and skill”(6). llenges (Gnoli). But the subsequent discussion Even more the program of the ISKO Maghreb took up more explicit points. conference 2014 states the important role of If knowledge organization should be a scientific context conditions for KO (7), what could be discipline in its own right, Dahlberg demands to named as ‘Order of Knowledge’ or ‘Knowledge develop it accordingly and start with elaborating Order’ (c.f. Spinner, 1094) its roots, such as Wuester’s work on concepts Gnoli suggests to analyze ISKO resources to (10), her contribution on concept definition and identify the scope of KO: the journal Knowledge concept systems (11), her development of an Organization (8), the online KO bibliography (9), Information Coding Classification (ICC), as well and the forthcoming online dictionary/glossary of as the fundamental studies of Ranganathan KO. In his definition e.g. ‘KO events’ should deal (1967) on faceted classification. with the subject content of documents in a broad Ohly demands that KO must be more open to sense of document, not just in libraries but inde- realize that there are new applications, new pendently from the technical means and carriers knowledge sources and quite other applications it addresses. He refers to Buckland (2014) who than library cataloging: virtual knowledge gene- sees a trend to “ubiquitous recording, pervasive ration, mobile devices, decision making, evalua- representations, simultaneous interaction re- tion indexes. By the way: ISKO UK had in No- gardless of geography, and powerful analysis vember 2014 a meeting on ‘Knowledge organi- and visualization of the records resulting from zation goes mobile’(12). Literacy is wanted on that ubiquitous recording”. He votes for ‘concep- KO for users from other communities but as well tual interoperability’ (conceptual mapping, there is a permanent need for understanding SKOS, OWL, etc.) as field of KO, in contrast to new upcoming techniques and thinking in neigh- technical interoperability. Therefore develop- boring fields. Openness to understanding and ments of the semantic web should be included in applicability of neighboring disciplines, speciali- KO. KO is often named with other terms in the zed areas, and other cultures can be strengt- field of ontology, taxonomy, terminology, topic hened by according tutorials, workshops, and maps, information architecture, etc. Here KO is co-operations.

Likewise Lopez-Huertas recommends to invite hodological revolution and, with some new ma- speakers from other communities to ISKO con- terial parameters, the forthcoming millennium ferences and to make sure that there is a suffi- invades a new organisational form of knowledge cient number of papers of interest to members of in the digital post-modern universe.” other communities. In the same way Campbell sees missions for KO And McTavish demands to incorporate better in the future (as well as for other disciplines). to new, different, and upcoming voices, e.g. from negotiate the demands of different cultures ins- students. ISKO should also offer partial confe- tead of enforcing uniformity, and to think more rence scholarships to new students. The new easily and clearly in terms of sustainability. The ISKO president Tennis in his candidacy state- next international ISKO congress 2016 in Rio de ment (2014a) argues similarly for: survey to the Janeiro will exactly be devoted to such a theme membership, convene discussion sessions, namely ‘Knowledge Organization for a Sustai- working groups. In another contribution (Tennis, nable World’. 2008) he says: “Our elenchus [rhetoric] is uni- Tennis sees a big potential in looking at other que, and by acknowledging what is and what it neighbor associations and groups, with their is not, we can see how our work interfaces with own approaches, terminology, means, and pur- myriad research initiatives and the legion of new poses, as classification is a problem solving techniques, tools, and systems of organization”. activity not only in very different kinds of libraries In the discussion round he argued in the same but also by everyone trying to organize digital way “to question what is core and what is perip- material (2014). heral” and to have an “open discussion about these issues” instead of relying on ‘canons’ that Babik promotes a network approach to know- define “what is core and what is peripheral” ledge organization, both in its theoretical and (Tennis, 2014). conceptual dimensions as well as in practical ISKO activities. Whereas in the past there was Dodebei sees the problem, that with the internet an explicit tendency toward automation, globali- and dynamic approaches we are losing historical zation and socialization of information and know- traces of knowledge. This leads over to the ledge creation processes, we have now to come question of supporting sustainable knowledge back to more human-oriented and sustainable for a ‘knowledge society’. Whereas the context developments. is unstable we have to find means to preserve a secured constant knowledge pool, especially in The question ‘Challeges for ISKO/KO’ provoked the soft sciences (art, history, anthropology, statements concerning its mission and strategy. archeology). Compare with this position Buc- ISKO has to contribute to sustainability and kland (2014), who states: “The tension between human aspects in the information task. KO lite- the benefits of technology and the limitations racy, openness, interdisciplinarity, and network imposed by fixity in a changing world provide a approaches are seen as demands for the future. central tension in knowledge organization over time”. For Dodebei cultural discussions, concer- 4. What is your ideal picture of what the ning e.g. the connected societies, have to be ISKO, resp. the KO, of the future could included in ISKO topics. be? How do we get there? For David the connected world (with the asso- Though in the previous question already ideals ciated functionalities) changes the way know- were formulated (Dahlberg: back to the roots; ledge is acquired, represented, managed and Ohly, McTavish, Lopez-Huertas: openess; Do- exploited. Hence KO has to care about. But debei, Campbell, Babik: sustainability and mankind should resist the temptation of research human-orientation) the following question on an [and methods] that are only technologically dri- ideal ISKO brought up further considerations. ven. Though the statements of San Segundo are not published in Green (2014) we can add here For David the current orientation of ISKO should her conclusion in 2006 (San Segundo, 2008). be maintained and reinforced. “To maintain its “The new organisation of knowledge points to a level of recognition, the community should re- totally new conception; post-modern epistemo- main focused on scientific objects rather than logy has yet to be articulated. There has been a technology-dependent issues.” Here one could leap from the invalidity of a general knowledge refer to the 10 desiderata of Dahlberg (2011). theory, which culminated in positivist epistemo- Ridenour favors an open access model of publi- logy, to a new digital organisation which is ob- cation to provide access for people who may be jectively de-structured and structured from sub- interested in KO, but are not part of the commu- jectivity, based on semantic networks instead of nity. Especially as “KO literature is both difficult lexical similarities, within this process of met-

Ohly, H. Peter. The Future of Knowledge Organization and Information Organization. En XII Congreso ISKO España y II Congreso ISKO España-Portugal, 19-20 de noviembre, 2015, Organización del conocimiento para sistemas de información abiertos. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 5 to locate and misindexed in databases such as 5. Conclusion [Library, Information Science & Technology Abs- tracts] LISTA, usually placed under knowledge Though the charter of ISKO (1989) mentions “all management” a forum might be helpful to attract methods for the organization of knowledge”, more people and to collaborate with individuals “especially the conceptual approaches”, the in other research specialties. practice and attraction of ISKO and subsequen- tly of its field KO is mainly restricted to the library Babik says that “ISKO and KO will benefit from and documentation science. KO is stated as a the implementation of the idea of information meta science to science, as it is applicable in all and knowledge society, because this process science fields and especially has the potential to demands high quality information and knowled- communicate information between various ge”. The idea of Knowledge ecology resp. Infor- fields. But the current tendency of mere techni- mation ecology (13) holds as well for KO. He cal orientation is seen as a threat. Instead se- distinguishes for ISKO activities three basic le- mantics and conceptual interoperability should vels: international, national and local. Accordin- play a bigger part. A common terminology, free gly the ISKO structure should be developed, like access to basic papers, as well as repositories it has been done in the Polish chapter. for modules are lacking. Cultural diversity, Ohly thinks of ISKO as a virtual institute where, openness and ploytely as well as high quality like in e-science, projects and advice functions information have to be guaranteed by KO, lea- are performed virtually with scientists, coming as ding to a knowledge ecology. Quite much more well from other disciplines. For him it is more application areas must be seen as KO playing important to explain and elaborate the differen- grounds than currently perceived in KO. ces, strengths and weakness of special KO approaches in special applications instead of kno- Notas wing what is the best KO system. (1) http://www.isko.org/ (all Internet links refer to 7 Nov. Tennis sees ‘polytely’, the complex problem- 2014) solving with multiple goals as a concept for IS- (2) http://www.isko.org/charter.pdf KO and KO, what implies for him the open dia- (3) c.f. the questions in McIlwaine/Mitchell (2008). 1. Can logue with other disciplines and professions. knowledge organization principles be extended to a broader scope, including hypertexts, multimedia, museum objects, For Soergel ISKO would ideally “develop into a and monuments? 2. Can the two basic approaches, ontolo- society that covers KO issues in a wide range of gical and epistemological, be reconciled? 3. Can any ontolo- applications, with keen attention to common gical foundation of knowledge organization be identified? 4. Should disciplines continue to be the structural base of principles, and that attracts people focusing on knowledge organization? 5. How can viewpoint warrant be KO from many communities, serving as a com- respected? 6. How can knowledge organization be adapted mon meeting point for the transfer of basic to local collection needs? 7. How can knowledge organiza- knowledge and of reusable modules in the deve- tion deal with changes in knowledge? 8. How can knowledge organization systems represent all the dimensions listed lopment of KO systems. … ISKO should get above? 9. How can software and formats be improved to involved in formulating information literacy stan- better serve these needs? 10. Who should do knowledge dards … for deeper understanding of principles organization: information professionals, authors or readers? of knowledge…” (Green, 2014). One should be (4) there he explains: “…you cannot classify domains on the aware of the wide range of KO applications, e.g. basis of theories of knowledge (or other metadisciplines, CYC Ontology, WordNet, Gene Ontology (GO), including genre studies, the sociology of knowledge, etc.)... SnoMed, etc. (14). “This extension of the range Epistemology is, however, the best general background...Concepts and semantic relations are not a priori or should also be pursued for the journal KO. […] neutral, but should be examined in relation to their implica- Finally, it would be useful to create a list of as- tions for the users they are meant to serve.” sociations, conferences, and separate listservs (5) c.f. Hjørland, 2013: “…In order to achieve good consis- that deal with KO and also repositories for KOS” tent indexing, the indexer must have a thorough appreciation (Green, 2014). of the structure of the subject and the nature of the contribution that the document is making to the advancement of To sum up, ideally KO and ISKO are seen as an knowledge…” exchange forum, not at least via electronic (6) Sidhom explains in an e-mail discussion, that ‘competiti- communication means, that provides access to ve advantage’ is the core point for the Maghreb world, whe- standards and different approaches in the field reas library and information science is of minor importance. the field of KO. Thus it would meet information Accordingly under ‘Classification’ as main topics are listed: ‘Knowledge management’ res‘Information management’ ecological and complex problem solving de- (Sidhom, 2014) – another interpretation of these concepts? mands. (7) “The governance of knowledge seems to be the Scientific Policy most able to creating value with regard of human and its evolution in cultures and civilizations. The duty of good governance is a consideration of the transfer of knowledge

Ohly, H. Peter. The Future of Knowledge Organization and Information Organization. En XII Congreso ISKO España y II Congreso ISKO España-Portugal, 19-20 de noviembre, 2015, Organización del conocimiento para sistemas de información abiertos. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 6 related to scientific and technological progress. Intrinsically, López-Huertas, Maria J. (2014). Exploring the boundaries of this process requires a system of organization and knowled- knowledge organization. Towards future projects. En: ge management by implementing knowledge production and Babik, W. (2014): Knowledge Organization in the 21st its influence in society. The objective of the ISKO-Maghreb Century: Between Historical Patterns and Future Pros- Chapter is to contribute in understanding the factors that pects. Proceedings of the 13th International ISKO Con- organize knowledge and phenomena that affect the informa- ference 19-22 May 2014 Kraków, Poland. Würzburg: Er- tion society.” http://iskomaghreb2014.cerist.dz/index.php? gon, 564-571. lang=en McIlwaine, Ia C.; Mitchell, Joan S. (2008). Preface to Special (8) http://www.ergon-verlag.de/en/bibliotheks-- Issue. ‘What is Knowledge Organization’. Knowl. Org. 35 informationswissenschaft/index.php (2/3). Ranganathan, Shiyali R. (1967). Prolegomena to Library (9) see: http://www.isko.org/lit.html Classification. The Five Laws of Library Science, 1-73. (10) c.f. DIN 2330 (2013); ISO 704 (2009) http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/ 106370 (11) see: Dahlberg, 1979; Dahlberg, 2009 Rodríguez-Bárcenas, Gustavo; López-Huertas, María J. (12) see: http://www.iskouk.org/events/mobileKO_Nov_ (2013). Saaty's analytic hierarchies method for knowled- 2014.htm ge organization in decision making. Journal of the Ame- rican Society for Information Science and Technology. (13) see e.g. Capurro, 2011 64 (7), p 1454–1467. (14) more he mentions in Green, 2014 San Segundo Manuel, R. (2008). From the invalidity of a general classification theory to a new organization of (15) all Internet links refer to 7 Nov. 2014 knowledge for the millennium to come. En: Ohly, H. P.; Netscher, S.; Mitgusch, K. (2008): Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation (Compatability, Referencias (15) media and ethics in knowledge organization). Procee- Buckland, Michael K. (2014). Knowledge organization and dings of the 10. conference of the German ISKO, Vien- the technology of intellectual work. En: Babik, W. (2014). na, July 2006. Ergon: Würzburg, p.12-17. Knowledge Organization in the 21st Century: Between Serres, Michel (1991). Le Tiers-Instruit. Pans. Editions Fran- Historical Patterns and Future Prospects. Proceedings of cois Bounn. 249 p. (published in English as: The Trou- the 13th International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014 badour of Knowledge. University of Michigan Press, Kraków, Poland. Würzburg: Ergon, 14-21. 1997) Capurro, Rafael (2011). Towards an Information Ecology. Sidhom, Sahbi (2014). e-mail ‘Re: CfP: 4th Int. SymISKO En: Wormell, I. (1990, updated 2011). Information Quali- Maghreb’ sent to the Executice Committee of ISKO, 27th ty. Definitions and Dimensions. London: Taylor Graham, Jan. 2014. 122-139. http://www.capurro.de/nordinf.htm Sidhom, Sahbi (2014b). ISKO-Maghreb (Tunisia, Algeria & Dahlberg, Ingetraut (2011). How to improve ISKO’s standing: Morocco) chapter Report May 2014, sent per e-mail to ten desiderata for knowledge organization. Knowl. Org. ISKO Executive Committee 16th May 2014. 38 (1), 68-74. Spinner, Helmut (1994). Die Wissensordnung: Ein Dahlberg, Ingetraut (2009). Concepts and terms: ISKO’s Leitkonzept für die dritte Grundordnung des major challenge. Knowl. Org. 36 (2/3), 169-177. Informationszeitalters. Opladen: Leske and Budrich. 276 Dahlberg, Ingetraut (1979). On the theory of the concept. En: p. Neelameghan, A. (1979). Ordering Systems for Global Tennis, Joseph T (May 2014). Canons, Affiliations, and Information Networks; Proceedings of 3rd International Polytely: The Future of Knowledge Organization and IS- Conference on Classification Research, Bombay, India, KO. (unpublished presentation for the 13th international January 6–11, 1975. Bangalore: Sarada Ranganathan ISKO conference, Krakow) Endowment for Library Science, 54–63. Tennis, Joseph T. (2014a). Candidacy Statements: Listen, De Beer, Carel S (2010). The troubadour of knowledge: a Deliberate, Act. knowledge worker for the new knowledge age. En: Gno- http://www.isko.org/president2014tennis.pdf li, Claudio; Mazzocchi, Fulvio (2010). Paradigms and Tennis, Joseph T. (2008). Epistemology, Theory, and Met- conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Procee- hodology. Knowl. Org. 35 (2/3), 102-112. dings of the 11th International ISKO Conference. http://faculty.washington.edu/jtennis/Publications_files/T Würzburg: Ergon, 430-437. ennis2008KOEpist.pdf DIN 2330 (1993). Begriffe und Benennungen – Allgemeine Grundsätze (concepts and designations – general principles). Berlin: Beuth, 1988, updated: 1993, 2013. Green, Rebecca (2014). ISKO and Knowledge Organiza- tion’s 25th Anniversary: The Future of Knowledge Orga- nization and ISKO. Panel Discussion. Knowl. Org. 41 (4), 327-331. See also: http://isko-brasil.org.br/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/relat_iskoCrac%C3% B3via2014.pdf ISKO (1989). ISKO charter and premable. http://www.isko.org/charter.pdf ISO 704 (2009). Terminology work - Principles and methods. 2000, updated. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. Hjørland, Birger (2013). Theories of knowledge organization - Theories of knowledge. Knowl. Org. 40 (3), 169-81.