Essays on Entrepreneurship and Founder Pre-entry Knowledge

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

A Knowledge-based System for Intelligent Support in Pharmacogenomics Evidence Assessment: Ontology-driven Evidence Representation, Retrieval, Classification and Interpretation

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Investigating the Effect of Histone H4 Sumoylation on Chromatin Structure and Function

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Toward a Theory of Structure in Information Organization Frameworks

This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.

A Convenient Verisimilitude or Oppressive Internalization? Characterizing the Ethical Arguments surrounding Hierarchical Structures in Knowledge Organization Systems

This paper considers the ethical concerns that surface around hierarchy as structure in knowledge organization systems. In order to do this, I consider the relationship between semantics and structure and argue for a separation of the two in design and critique of knowledge organization systems. The paper closes with an argument that agency and intention, as ethical concerns in knowledge organization, lead us to argue for a neutral stance on hierarchy.

A Kaleidoscope Perspective: Change in the Semantics and Structure of Facets and Isolates in Analytico-Synthetic Classification

Examines the limitations of the dynamic theory of classification in accommodating the changes and rapid growth of new topics in the universe of knowledge. Change in an analytico-synthetic scheme for classification is much more a web of connections and mapping these changes is a complex process. Suggests that there is need for exploration of this complexity for both improving systems, and revisiting our theory.

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.

Fringe Types and KOS Systematics: Examining the Limits of the Population Perspective of Knowledge Organization Systems

We find ourselves, after the close of the twentieth century, looking back at a mass of responses to the knowledge organization problem. Many institutions, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (Furner, 2007), have grown up to address it. Increasingly, many diverse discourses are appropriating the problem and crafting a wide variety of responses. This includes many artistic interpretations of the act and products of knowledge organization. These surface as responses to the expressive power or limits of the Library and Information Studies institutions (e.g., DDC) and their often primarily utilitarian gaze.One way to make sense of this diversity is to approach the study from a descriptive stance, inventorying the population of types of KOS. This population perspective approaches the phenomenon of types and boundaries of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) as one that develops out of particular discourses, for particular purposes. For example, both DDC and Martianus Capella, a 5th Century encyclopedist, are KOS in this worldview. Both are part of the population of KOS. Approaching the study of KOS from the population perspective allows the researcher a systematic look at the diversity emergent at the constellation of different factors of design and implementation. However, it is not enough to render a model of core types, but we have to also consider the borders of KOS. Fringe types of KOS inform research, specifically to the basic principles of design and implementation used by others outside of the scholarly and professional discourse of Library and Information Studies.Four examples of fringe types of KOS are presented in this paper. Applying a rubric developed in previous papers, our aim here is to show how the conceptual anatomy of these fringe types relates to more established KOS, thereby laying bare the definitions of domain, purpose, structure, and practice. Fringe types, like Beghtol’s examples (2003), are drawn from areas outside of Library and Information Studies proper, and reflect the reinvention of structures to fit particular purposes in particular domains. The four fringe types discussed in this paper are (1) Roland Barthes’ text S/Z which “indexes” a text of an essay with particular “codes” that are meant to expose the literary rhythm of the work; (2) Mary Daly’s Wickedary, a reference work crafted for radical liberation theology – and specifically designed to remove patriarchy from the language used by what the author calls “wild women”; (3) Luigi Serafini’s Codex Seraphinianus a work of book art that plays on the trope of universal encyclopedia and back-of- the book index; and (4) Martinaus Capella – and his Marriage of Mercury and Philology, a fifth century encyclopedia. We compared these using previous analytic taxonomies (Wright, 2008; Tennis, 2006; Tudhope, 2006, Soergel, 2001, Hodge, 2000).