Terminology Cross-Domain Final Report

The InterPARES 2 Terminology Cross-Domain has created three terminological instruments in service to the project, and by extension, Archival Science. Over the course of the five-year project this Cross-Domain has collected words, definition, and phrases from extant documents, research tools, models, and direct researcher submission and discussion. From these raw materials, the Cross-Domain has identified a systematic and pragmatic way establishing a coherent view on the concepts involved in dynamic, experiential, and interactive records and systems in the arts, sciences, and e-government.The three terminological instruments are the Glossary, Dictionary, and Ontologies. The first of these is an authoritative list of terms and definitions that are core to our understanding of the evolving records creation, keeping, and preservation environments. The Dictionary is a tool used to facilitate interdisciplinary communication. It contains multiple definitions for terms, from multiple disciplines. By using this tool, researchers can see how Archival Science deploys terminology compared to Computer Science, Library and Information Science, or Arts, etc. The third terminological instrument, the Ontologies, identify explicit relationships between concepts of records. This is useful for communicating the nuances of Diplomatics in the dynamic, experiential, and interactive environment.All three of these instruments were drawn from a Register of terms gathered over the course of the project. This Register served as a holding place for terms, definitions, and phrases, and allowed researchers to discuss, comment on, and modify submissions. The Register and the terminological instruments were housed in the Terminology Database. The Database provides searching, display, and file downloads – making it easy to navigate through the terminological instruments.Terminology used in InterPARES 1 and the UBC Project was carried forward to this Database. In this sense, we are building on our past knowledge, and making it relevant to the contemporary environment.

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ADDITION OF BEVACIZUMAB TO STANDARD CHEMOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Constructs in Knowledge Organization Systems: Rhythm in Time, Intention, and Form

In the context of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, we often consider knowledge organization systems to comprise catalogues, thesauri, and bibliothecal classification schemes – schemes for library arrangement. In recent years we have added ontologies and folksonomies to our sphere of study. In all of these cases it seems we are concerned with improving access to information. We want a good system.And much of the literature from the late 19th into the late 20th century took that as their goal – to analyze the world of knowledge and the structures of representing it as its objects of study; again, with the ethos for creating a good system. In most cases this meant we had to be correct in our assertions about the universe of knowledge and the relationships that obtain between its constituent parts. As a result much of the literature of knowledge organization is prescriptive – instructing designers and professionals how to build or use the schemes correctly – that is to maximize redundant success in accessing information.In 2005, there was a turn in some of the knowledge organization literature. It has been called the descriptive turn. This is in relation to the otherwise prescriptive efforts of researchers in KO. And it is the descriptive turn that makes me think of context, languages, and cultures in knowledge organization–the theme of this year’s conference.Work in the descriptive turn questions the basic assumptions about what we want to do when we create, implement, maintain, and evaluate knowledge organization systems. Following on these assumptions researchers have examined a wider range of systems and question the motivations behind system design. Online websites that allow users to curate their own collections are one such addition, for example Pinterest (cf., Feinberg, 2011). However, researchers have also looked back at other lineages of organizing to compare forms and functions. For example, encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and winter counts designed and used by Native Americans.In this case of online curated collections, Melanie Feinberg has started to examine the craft of curation, as she calls it. In this line of research purpose, voice, and rhetorical stance surface as design considerations. For example, in the case of the Pinterest, users are able and encouraged to create boards. The process of putting together these boards is an act of curation in contemporary terminology. It is describing this craft that comes from the descriptive turn in KO.In the second case, when researchers in the descriptive turn look back at older and varied examples of knowledge organization systems, we are looking for a full inventory of intent and inspiration for future design. Encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and works of knowledge organization in other cultures provide a rich world for the descriptive turn. And researchers have availed themselves of this.

Epistemic, Ontic, Axiologic, and Praxic Constructs in Knowledge Organization Research

The work of knowledge organization requires a particular set of tools. For instance we need standards of content description like Anglo-American Cataloging Rules Edition 2, Resource Description and Access (RDA), Cataloging Cultural Objects, and Describing Archives: A Content Standard. When we intellectualize the process of knowledge organization – that is when we do basic theoretical research in knowledge organization we need another set of tools. For this latter exercise we need constructs. Constructs are ideas with many conceptual elements, largely considered subjective. They allow us to be inventive as well as allow us to see a particular point of view in knowledge organization. For example, Patrick Wilson’s ideas of exploitative control and descriptive control, or S. R. Ranganathan’s fundamental categories are constructs. They allow us to identify functional requirements or operationalizations of functional requirements, or at least come close to them for our systems and schemes. They also allow us to carry out meaningful evaluation.What is even more interesting, from a research point of view, is that constructs once offered to the community can be contested and reinterpreted and this has an affect on how we view knowledge organization systems and processes. Fundamental categories are again a good example in that some members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) argued against Ranganathan’s point of view. The CRG posited more fundamental categories than Ranganathan’s five, Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time (Ranganathan, 1967). The CRG needed significantly more fundamental categories for their work.1 And these are just two voices in this space we can also consider the fundamental categories of Johannes Kaiser (1911), Shera and Egan, Barbara Kyle (Vickery, 1960), and Eric de Grolier (1962). We can also reference contemporary work that continues comparison and analysis of fundamental categories (e.g., Dousa, 2011).In all these cases we are discussing a construct. The fundamental category is not discovered; it is constructed by a classificationist. This is done because it is useful in engaging in the act of classification. And while we are accustomed to using constructs or debating their merit in one knowledge organization activity or another, we have not analyzed their structure, nor have we created a typology. In an effort to probe the epistemological dimension of knowledge organization, we think it would be a fruitful exercise to do this. This is because we might benefit from clarity around not only our terminology, but the manner in which we talk about our terminology. We are all creative workers examining what is available to us, but doing so through particular lenses (constructs) identifying particular constructs. And by knowing these and being able to refer to these we would consider a core competency for knowledge organization researchers.