User:GardenMoth25/Knowledge organization system
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Some notes regarding the markdown styling of this page:
- non-bolded text = sections copied from the original article (also annotated as such)
strikethrough= original article text to be removed- bold = text to be added to the article
- bold-italic = notes to self and draft sentences/phrases
strikethrough bold/B-I= old notes/drafts that can be ignored
Article Draft
[edit](Lead)
[edit](begin of copied section) Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations.[1] Despite their differences in type, coverage and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. (end of copied section) <- Note: will need to add Oxford comma to both sentences b/c I use it throughout my added sections
Briefly introduce broad vs specific definition, as outlined in Mazzocchi[2]?
KOS represent both structural and functional features.
KOS serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish hierarchical and associative relationships, and present properties.[3]
^ Note: may need to research or rephrase ^ more… this is too specific to one researcher's publication
(Article body)
[edit](begin of copied section) KOS can be represented in can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web.[4]
^ Note: be sure to remove the redundancy above
Many lists of KOS exist with BARTOC being the largest and most general one. (end of copied section)
^ Note: Need to expand ^ this final sentence, since "many" KOS lists are supposedly available and yet only one is provided.
^ Note: Replace the above stricken-through existing sentence with the following (unless a source can be found that definitively states that BARTOC is the largest KOS database):
One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry.[5]
Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers.[6] With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible and more complex structures were developed.[6] Prominent examples of KOS in fields outside of library and information science include organism taxonomy (biology),[1] the periodic table of elements (chemistry),[1] SIC and NAICS (industry & business),[6] and AGROVOC (food & agriculture).[7][8]
Prominent examples of KOS in fields outside of library and information science include organism taxonomy (biology),[1] the periodic table of elements (chemistry),[1] SIC and NAICS (industry & business),[6] and AGROVOC (food & agriculture).[7][8]
Although KOS are associated with library and information science, other disciplines utilize
Although KOS are strongly associated with library and information science, other disciplines such as abstracting and indexing services, journal publication, and technical standard development,
Although KOS has their roots in library and information science, other fields
Other specific disciplines beyond library and information sciences that utilize KOS include
KOS are primarily used in the field of library and information science (LIS), and were originally developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services.
KOS originated in the field of library and information science (LIS), and are particularly important in the field of information retrieval, library and information science (LIS),
Examples Types
[edit](current article has bulleted, unordered list; not copied here)
While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance.[6][9][3] Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen.[10][2]
The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice.
Note: may convert these to bulleted lists under each header? May be more navigable for scanning users.
Term lists
[edit]Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings.[6][3] Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists,[6] however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models".[3]
Examples include the Union List of Artist Names (a name authority file) and PeriodO (a gazetteer).
Categorization and classification
[edit]KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema.[6][3]
Despite inconsistent use of the seemingly-interchangeable terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature,[2] categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes.[3][11] Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Dahlberg's Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification).[3]
Relationship models
[edit]The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri,[note 1] semantic networks, and ontologies.[3][10]
One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet.
Others
[edit]Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies,[10] topic maps,[10][2] IR systems,[12] web directory structures,[13] publication organization systems,[6] and bibliometric maps.[2]
---- Misc notes to self ----
ionclass
Classification v categorization: Zeng,[3] Jacob[11]. This is related to a larger issue in the scholarly understanding of KOS as argued by (Weinberg, Mazzocchi).
Relationship models (referred to as "relationship lists" by Hodge[6]) include thesauri,* semantic networks, and ontologies.[3]
--
Introduction of schema of KOS--different, produced by Hodge,[6] Shouza,[10] Zeng?.[3] Mention scholarly issue of this reduction to a dimensional graph somehow implying superiority of certain designs.
Term lists: lists ("pick lists"?), glossaries, dictionaries, synonym rings*
Metadata-like models: authority files, directories, gazetteers*
Classification & Categorization: subject headings, categorization schemes, classification schemes, taxonomies*. Can reference categorization v classification by Jacob.[11]
Relationship models: thesauri,* semantic networks, ontologies
Star (*) = add image
---- End of misc notes ----
Considerations (/alternative title for this section?)
[edit]The study and design of KOS is a topic of discussion among knowledge organization scholars.
Mazzocchi[2] has proposed three issues in the scholarly understanding of KOS: coverage, terminology, and criteria for comparison.
Knowledge, memory, pluralism, conflicting views
Universality
[edit]Some scholars have proposed universal KOS, such as Dahlberg's Information Coding Classification. However, others argue that it is not possible for a KOS to fully encompass all knowledge
Universality v contexutalism?
Although some argue for the possibility of a universal KOS, others state that it is not possible for a KOS to fully encompass all knowledge.
Terminology
[edit][There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary.
— Bella Hass Weinberg, 1998[2]
Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue.[2] For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably.
Terminology within the study of KOS is another common issue.
Add quotation by Weinberg 1998?
Terminology—including, but not limited to, the aforementioned issue of "classification" versus "categorization"—
Bias
[edit]As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes.[14][15] For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the DSM have been raised,[16] contributing to ongoing revisions. Designs for ethical and intentional approaches to knowledge organization have been proposed.[14]
Moral approach to multi-perspective KOS[14]
Designs for ethical and intentional approaches to knowledge organization have been proposed in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices.
Obsolescence
[edit]The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science.[17] Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services,[18] as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.[19]
improving computational capabilities allowing for more
However, the needs within specific domains.
See also
[edit]- (start of current)
Library and information science - Library classification (end of current) Note: can remove ^ LIS reference b/c mentioned in proposed changes to article
- Epistemology
- Metadata
Notes
[edit]- ^ A network of controlled vocabulary, not to be confused with its homonym relating to a synonym dictionary.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e Hjørland, Birger. 2016. Knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization 43, no. 6: 475-84. Also available in Hjørland, Birger, ed. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Mazzocchi, Fulvio (2018-03-06). "Knowledge Organization System (KOS): An Introductory Critical Account". Knowledge Organization. 45 (1): 54–78. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Zeng, Marcia Lei (2008-09-14). "Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS)". Knowledge Organization. 35 (2–3): 160–182. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-160. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ Alistair, Miles; Bechhofer, Sean (18 August 2009). "SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System, W3C Recommendation".
- ^ Ledl, Andreas; Voß, Jakob (Summer 2016). Describing Knowledge Organization Systems in BARTOC and JSKOS (PDF). International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Frederiksberg, Denmark. pp. 168–178. ISBN 9788799917907.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Hodge, Gail (2000). Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files (Electronic ed.). Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources. ISBN 978-1-887334-76-1.
- ^ a b Mietzsch, Esther; Martini, Daniel; Kolshus, Kristin; Turbati, Andrea; Subirats, Imma (2021-11-24). "How Agricultural Digital Innovation Can Benefit from Semantics: The Case of the AGROVOC Multilingual Thesaurus". Engineering Proceedings. 9 (1). MDPI. doi:10.3390/engproc2021009017.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b "Examples of Knowledge Organization System (KOS)". ISKO UK. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
- ^ Blumauer, Andreas; Pellegrini, Tassilo (2006), Semantic Web und semantische Technologien: Zentrale Begriffe und Unterscheidungen (in German), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 9–25, doi:10.1007/3-540-29325-6_2, ISBN 978-3-540-29324-8, retrieved 2025-03-22
- ^ a b c d e Souza, Renato Rocha; Tudhope, Douglas; Almeida, Maurício Barcellos (2012). "Towards a Taxonomy of KOS: Dimensions for Classifying Knowledge Organization Systems". Knowledge Organization. 39 (3): 179–192. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2012-3-179. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ a b c Jacob, E. (2004). "Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a Difference". Library Trends.
- ^ Hjørland, Birger (2012-04-20). "Is classification necessary after Google?". Journal of Documentation. 68 (3): 299–317. doi:10.1108/00220411211225557. ISSN 0022-0418.
- ^ Soergel, Dagobert (2009). "Knowledge Organization Systems: Overview" (PDF).
- ^ a b c Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Maayan; Hajibayova, Lala (2020-06-23). "A new framework for ethical creation and evaluation of multi-perspective knowledge organization systems". Journal of Documentation. 76 (6): 1459–1471. doi:10.1108/JD-04-2020-0053. ISSN 0022-0418.
- ^ Adler, Melissa; Tennis, Joseph T. (2013). "Toward a Taxonomy of Harm in Knowledge Organization Systems". Knowledge Organization. 40 (4): 266–272. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-266. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ Cooper, Rachel (2017). "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)". Knowledge Organization. 44 (8): 668–676. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2017-8-668. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ Hjørland, Birger (2016). "Does the Traditional Thesaurus Have a Place in Modern Information Retrieval?". Knowledge Organization. 43 (3): 145–159. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2016-3-145. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ Tudhope, Douglas; Binding, Ceri (2016). "Still Quite Popular After all Those Years— The Continued Relevance of the Information Retrieval Thesaurus". Knowledge Organization. 43 (3): 174–179. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2016-3-174. ISSN 0943-7444.
- ^ Clarke, Stella G. Dextre (2016). "Stella G. Dextre Clarke". Knowledge Organization. 43 (3): 138–144. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2016-3-138. ISSN 0943-7444.
External links
[edit]- (start of current)
Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS)†(end) <- can remove b/c cited often in article - BARTOC
- PeriodO
- ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization