Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Nature of Knowledge Organization Systems to Serve Interdisciplinarity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization

  • 1118 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 2 closed with a list of the desired attributes of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for interdisciplinarity. This chapter opens with a brief survey of KOSs, and then asks what sort of KOS could provide these desired attributes. In particular, it provides arguments for the theses that:

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Causal relationships were only one type of connection for which Ranganathan recommended synthetic notation (‘phase relationships’). Another occurred when the subject matter of one discipline was applied to another. Such connections are also captured by classifying works in terms of theory and method applied. Ranganathan also discussed possible ways in which concepts might be related definitionally; this concern is also addressed elsewhere. Rowley and Hartley (2008) and Marcella and Newton (1994, 60) are among many information scientists who have urged the use of synthetic notation .

  2. 2.

    Wesolek (2012) asserts incorrectly that Szostak opposes domain analysis . Szostak had opposed only an exclusive reliance on domain analysis. Wesolek does appreciate that Szostak sought to balance Hjørland ’s inductive approach with a deductive comprehensive analysis.

  3. 3.

    Hjørland (2013) worries that classifications differ by ontology , and thus there is no one best ontology. Yet his conclusion stresses that we should ground classifications in scientific understanding within different fields. The approach recommended here aspires to do precisely that. The question as to how well these domain-specific understandings of the world fit within a comprehensive ontology is an empirical question. There is certainly considerable consensus around the existence of at least some types of things and relationships. We are nevertheless guided to reduce opportunities for conflict.

  4. 4.

    Most of the headings for a thesaurus in women’s studies could be terms used in a general classification (López-Huertas and Torres Ramirez 2007). The authors worry that employing such a structure does not accurately reflect what is considered important in the field. But it might be possible to construct a thesaurus that prioritized the terminology of the field while providing links to the terms in a general classification.

  5. 5.

    Beghtol (2003) noted that literary warrant—the idea that a place must be found for all works in a bibliographic classification—guides information science to build its classifications upon those developed by scholars. But scholars develop classifications in the first instance to aid research on the frontiers of understanding, and these “naïve” classifications need not be ideally suited to organizing information for retrieval.

  6. 6.

    Olson (2007) notes that users often wish to search for syntagmatic relationships, such as embroidered Christmas ornaments, but the bulk of effort in information science has focused on paradigmatic relationships (those that always hold). General users as well as interdisciplinary scholars will clearly benefit from a synthetic approach.

  7. 7.

    Davis and Shaw (2011, 32–3) appreciate the existence of a confirmation bias whereby users often seek information that accords with their point of view.

  8. 8.

    Questions regarding if/how to signal how well particular theories or methods are applied are beyond the scope of this book. Szostak (2014b) explores some possibilities.

  9. 9.

    Hjørland (2012) explores the possibilities for knowledge organization in a world “after Google.” He appears to appreciate the value of some sort of general classification in meeting this challenge.

  10. 10.

    See Ranganathan (1967) on seminal mnemonics.

  11. 11.

    It should be noted that there are multiple upper level ontologies following different sets of axioms (and ontologists such as Masolo et al. n.d., aspire merely to link these and identify their sources of difference—which notably include preferences over different degrees of compounding), and thus the path through ontology to a general classification is at this point unclear (see Masolo et al. n.d., for a comparison of several upper-level ontologies). [The National Centre for Ontological Research in the United States does aspire to instill certain logical principles that would facilitate cross-ontology communication.] Moreover it should be appreciated that some ontologies would exclude logically many documents/ideas from consideration (e.g. the past may be thought to be unreal). The sort of logical argument that ontologists engage (such as how abstract things such as numbers can be said to exist without existing at any particular point in time) are often of little import to the classificationist.

  12. 12.

    Topic maps (Melgar Estrada 2011) are yet another approach that could potentially benefit from an exhaustive classification of phenomena and causal relationships.

  13. 13.

    Almeida (2013) argues that the purpose of ontology is to capture the nature of a work, not just its subject. We have seen above that the sort of classification urged here should capture the nature of a work.

References

  • Almeida MB (2013) Revisiting ontologies: a necessary clarification. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(8):1682–1693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) (2013) About interdisciplinarity. http://www.oakland.edu/ais/

  • Beghtol C (1998) Knowledge domains: multidisciplinarity and bibliographic classification systems. Knowl Org 25(1/2):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghtol C (2003) Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between “Professional” and “Naïve” classifications. Knowl Org 30(2):64–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton V (2010) Concepts and terms in the faceted classification: the case of UDC. Knowl Org 37(4):270–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesanelli E (2008) Classificare il dominio della comunicazione secondo la teoria dei livelli di integrazione. E-LIS. http://eprints.rclis.org/14632/

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheti A, Paradisi F (2008) Facet analysis in the development of a general controlled vocabulary. Axiomathes 18(2):223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleverdon CW, Keen EM (1966) Factors determining the performance of indexing systems. Vol. 1: Design, Vol. 2: Results. Aslib Cranfield Research Project, Cranfield, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousson P (2009) UDC as a non-disciplinary classification for a high school library. Proceedings of the UDC seminar 2009: classification at a crossroads. Extensions Corrections UDC 31:243–252, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/199909

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis CH, Shaw D (2011) Introduction to information science &technology. ASIST Monograph Series, Medford, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRidder JL (2007) The immediate prospects for the application of ontologies in digital libraries. Knowl Org 34(4):227–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervos D, Coleman A (2006) A common sense approach to defining data, information, and metadata. In: Budin G, Swertz C, Mitgutsch K (eds) Knowledge organization for a Global Learning Society. Proceedings of the ninth international ISKO conference, Vienna. Ergon, Würzburg, pp 51–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Dextre Clarke SG (2011) ISO25964 A standard in support of KOS interoperability. In: Gilchrist A, Vernau J (eds) Facets of knowledge organization: proceedings of the ISKO UK second biennial conference, London. Emerald, Bingley, UK, pp 129–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan M (1996) The hybridization of social science knowledge. Libr Trends 45(2):296–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan M, Pahre R (1990) Creative marginality: innovation at the intersection of social sciences. Westview, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Feibleman JK (1954) Theory of Integrative Levels. Br J Philos Sci 5(17):59–66, Reprinted in Theory of subject analysis (1985) Chan L M et al (eds) Libraries Unlimited, Littleton. pp 136–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foskett AC (1996) The subject approach to information, 5th edn. Library Association Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardin J-C (1965) SYNTOL. Graduate School of Library Service, Rutgers, the State University, New Brunswick, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glushko RJ (ed) (2013) The discipline of organizing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2007) Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization. Knowl Org 35(2/3):137–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2011a) Animals belonging to the emperor: enabling viewpoint warrant in classification. In: Landry P, Bultrini L, O’Neill ET, Roe SK (eds) Subject access: preparing for the future. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 91–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2011b) Ontological foundations in Knowledge Organization. Scire 17(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Golub K (2014) Subject access to information: an interdisciplinary approach. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower B (1997) Scientific method: an historical and philosophical introduction. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R, Bean CA, Myaeng SH (eds) (2002) The semantics of relationships. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris RA (2013) A handbook of rhetorical devices. http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart G, Dolbear C (2013) Linked data: a geographic perspective. CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B (2002) Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches—traditional as well as innovative. J Doc 58(4):422–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B (2008) Core classification theory: a reply to Szostak. J Doc 64(3):333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B (2012) Is classification necessary after Google? J Doc 68(3):299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B (2013) Theories of knowledge organization—theories of knowledge. Knowl Org 40(3):169–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B, Nissen Pedersen K (2005) A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. J Doc 61(5):582–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoetzlein R (2007) The organization of human knowledge: systems for interdisciplinary research. Masters thesis, Media Arts and Technology Program, University of California Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins WJ (1977) On the problem of ‘Aboutness’ in document analysis. J Inform 1:17–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) (2004) ISKO Italia. www.iskoi.org/ilc/

  • Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. The Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleineberg M (2013) The blind men and the elephant: towards an organization of epistemic contexts. Knowl Org 40(5):340–362

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBarre K, Tilley CL (2012) The elusive tale: leveraging the study of information seeking and Knowledge Organization to improve access to and discovery of folktales. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 63(4):687–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León Manifesto (2007) Knowl Org 34(1):6–8. Available [with commentary] at: www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php

  • López-Huertas MJ (2006) Thematic map of interdisciplinary domains based on their terminological representation. The gender studies. In: Budin G, Swertz C, Mitgutsch K (eds) Knowledge Organization for a Global Learning Society. Proceedings of the Ninth International ISKO conference, Vienna. Ergon, Würzburg, pp 331–338

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Huertas MJ (2007) Comment on the León Manifesto. www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php

  • López-Huertas MJ, Torres Ramírez I (2007) Gender terminology and indexing systems: the case of woman’s body. Libri 57:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcella R, Newton R (1994) A new manual of classification. Gower, Aldershot, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin TP, Shen Y (2008) Soft mapping between hierarchical classifications. In: Bouchon-Meunier B, Marsala C, Rifqi M, Yager RR (eds) Uncertainty and intelligent information systems. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 155–167

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A( n.d.) Ontology Library. Laboratory for Applied Ontology - ISTC-CNR. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf

  • Mayr E (1981) Biological classification: toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214:510–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocchi F, Tiberi M, De Santis B, Plini P (2007) Relational semantics in thesauri: some remarks at theoretical and practical levels. Knowl Org 34(4):197–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Melgar Estrada LM (2011) Topic maps from a Knowledge Organization perspective. Knowl Org 38(1):43–61

    Google Scholar 

  • National Library of Medicine (2014) Semantic relationships. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/new_users/online_learning/SEM_004.html

  • Olson H (2007) How we construct subjects: a feminist analysis. Libr Trends 56(2):509–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (2010) Information research on interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 174–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan SR (1967) Prolegomena to library classification, 3rd edn. SRELS, Bangalore

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF (2012) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R (eds) (2012) Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley JE, Hartley R (2008) Organizing knowledge, 4th edn. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter L, Hearn A (eds) (1997) Outside the lines : issues in interdisciplinary research. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Satija MP (1989) Colon classification, 7th edn. Ess Ess Publications, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiri A (2012) Powering search: the role of thesauri in new information environments. ASIS&T Monograph series, Medford, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiraglia RP (2001) The nature of “a work”: implications for the organization of knowledge. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiraglia RP (2012) Epistemology of domain analysis. In: Smiraglia RP, Lee H (eds) Cultural frames of knowledge. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 111–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Soergel D, Lauser B, Liang A, Fisseha F, Keizer J, Katz S (2004) Reengineering thesauri for new applications: the AGROVOC example. J Digit Inform 4(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spärck Jones K (2005) Some thoughts on classification for retrieval. J Doc 61(5):571–81 [Originally published, 1970]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius E (1983) Use of classification in online retrieval. Libr Resour Tech Serv 27:76–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2008) Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. J Doc 64(3):319–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2011) Complex concepts into basic concepts. J Am Soc Inform Soc Technol 62(11):2247–2265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2012a) Classifying relationships. Knowl Org 39(3):165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2012b) Toward a classification of relationships. Knowl Org 39(2):83–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014a) Classifying the humanities. Knowl Org 41(4):263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014b) Skepticism and Knowledge Organization. In: Babik W (ed) Knowledge Organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the 13th ISKO conference, Krakow. Ergon, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014c) How universal is universality? [Letter to the editor]. Knowl Org 41(6):468–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery BC (2008) The structure of subject classifications for document retrieval. http://www.iskoi.org/ilc/vickery.php

  • Wåhlin E (1974) The AR-complex: adapted systems used in combination with a common reference system. In: Wojciechowski JA (ed) Conceptual basis of classification of knowledge: proceedings of the Ottawa conference. Verlag Dokumentation, Pullach, pp 416–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach H (2006) Topic modelling: beyond ‘bag of words’. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on machine learning. Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisgerber DW (1993) Interdisciplinary searching: problems and suggested remedies. A report from the ICSTI group on interdisciplinary searching. J Doc 49(3):231–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesolek A (2012) Wittgensteinian support for domain analysis in classification. Libr Philos Pract 1(1):1–10, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1933&context=libphilprac

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng ML, Zumer M, Salaba A (2011) The functional requirements for subject authority records. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes Report. DeGruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng ML, Gracy KF, Žumer M (2014) Using a semantic analysis tool to generate subject access points: a study using Panofsky’s theory and two research samples. Knowl Org 41(6):440–451

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Rick Szostak

  2. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Claudio Gnoli

  3. University of Granada, Granada, Granada, Spain

    María López-Huertas

Authors
  1. Rick Szostak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio Gnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María López-Huertas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., López-Huertas, M. (2016). The Nature of Knowledge Organization Systems to Serve Interdisciplinarity. In: Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30147-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30148-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation