Modeling the Aesthetic Axis of Information Organization Frameworks, Part 1: Theoretical Basis

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework, based on contemporary philosophical aesthetics, from which principled assessments of the aesthetic value of information organization frameworks may be conducted.Design/methodology/approach – This paper identifies appropriate discourses within the field of philosophical aesthetics, constructs from them a framework for assessing aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks. This framework is then applied in two case studies examining the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Sexual Nomenclature: A Thesaurus. Findings – In both information organization frameworks studied, the aesthetic analysis was useful in identifying judgments of the frameworks as aesthetic judgments, in promoting discovery of further areas of aesthetic judgments, and in prompting reflection on the nature of these aesthetic judgments. Research limitations/implications – This study provides proof-of-concept for the aesthetic evaluation of information organization frameworks. Areas of future research are identified as the role of cultural relativism in such aesthetic evaluation and identification of appropriate aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks.Practical implications – By identifying a subset of judgments of information organization frameworks as aesthetic judgments, aesthetic evaluation of such frameworks can be made explicit and principled. Aesthetic judgments can be separated from questions of economic feasibility, functional requirements, and user-orientation. Design and maintenance of information organization frameworks can be based on these principles.Originality/value – This study introduces a new evaluative axis for information organization frameworks based on philosophical aesthetics. By improving the evaluation of such novel frameworks, design and maintenance can be guided by these principles.Keywords Evaluation, Research methods, Analysis, Bibliographic systems, Indexes, Retrieval languages

Modeling the Aesthetic Axis of Information Organization Frameworks, Part 2: Case Studies

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework, based on contemporary philosophical aesthetics, from which principled assessments of the aesthetic value of information organization frameworks may be conducted.Design/methodology/approach – This paper identifies appropriate discourses within the field of philosophical aesthetics, constructs from them a framework for assessing aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks. This framework is then applied in two case studies examining the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Sexual Nomenclature: A Thesaurus. Findings – In both information organization frameworks studied, the aesthetic analysis was useful in identifying judgments of the frameworks as aesthetic judgments, in promoting discovery of further areas of aesthetic judgments, and in prompting reflection on the nature of these aesthetic judgments. Research limitations/implications – This study provides proof-of-concept for the aesthetic evaluation of information organization frameworks. Areas of future research are identified as the role of cultural relativism in such aesthetic evaluation and identification of appropriate aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks.Practical implications – By identifying a subset of judgments of information organization frameworks as aesthetic judgments, aesthetic evaluation of such frameworks can be made explicit and principled. Aesthetic judgments can be separated from questions of economic feasibility, functional requirements, and user-orientation. Design and maintenance of information organization frameworks can be based on these principles.Originality/value – This study introduces a new evaluative axis for information organization frameworks based on philosophical aesthetics. By improving the evaluation of such novel frameworks, design and maintenance can be guided by these principles.Keywords Evaluation, Analysis, Bibliographic systems, Indexes, Retrieval languages, Philosophy

Authenticity as a Social Contract—We Are Our Records

This poster presents the authors’ work to date on developing an application profile for authenticity metadata (the IPAM, or InterPARES Authenticity Metadata), including (1) the functional requirements,(2) metadata elements derived from the Chain of Preservation model from the InterPARES research project, (3) a crosswalk of a sample of IPAM elements to Dublin Core, PREMIS, and MoReq2010,(4) those elements deemed essential to presume the authenticity of a record as it moves from creation to permanent preservation, and (5) next steps, integrating the application profile into the Archivematica preservation system the core elements of the application profile relating to maintaining the presumption of authenticity through preservation and access.

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.

Stevens County GIS Data 2009

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 2012

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 2011

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 2007

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 2004

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 1999

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Thurston County GIS Data 1998

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Yakima County GIS Data 2007

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Yakima County GIS Data 2010

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

Yakima County Assessor Data 2010

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.

University of Washington GIS Data 2013

UW access only. Questions about spatial data can be directed to uwlib-gis [at] uw [dot] edu, include the URI address below and any information you have.