URIs and Intertextuality: Incumbent Philosophical Commitments in the Development of the Semantic Web

Examines two commitments inherent in Resource Description Framework (RDF): intertextuality and rationalism. After introducing how rationalism has been studied in knowledge organization, this paper then introduces the concept of bracketed-rationalism. This paper closes with a discussion of ramifications of intertextuality and bracketed rationalism on evaluation of RDF.

Ontologies and the Semantic Web: Problems and Perspectives for LIS Professionals

Many years have passed since Berners-Lee envi- sioned the Web as it should be (1999), but still many information professionals do not know their precise role in its development, especially con- cerning ontologies –considered one of its main elements. Why? May it still be a lack of under- standing between the different academic commu- nities involved (namely, Computer Science, Lin- guistics and Library and Information Science), as reported by Soergel (1999)? The idea behind the Semantic Web is that of several technologies working together to get optimum information re- trieval performance, which is based on proper resource description in a machine-understandable way, by means of metadata and vocabularies (Greenberg, Sutton and Campbell, 2003). This is obviously something that Library and Information Science professionals can do very well, but, are we doing enough? When computer scientists put on stage the ontology paradigm they were asking for semantically richer vocabularies that could support logical inferences in artificial intelligence as a way to improve information retrieval systems. Which direction should vocabulary development take to contribute better to that common goal? The main objective of this paper is twofold: 1) to identify main trends, issues and problems con- cerning ontology research and 2) to identify pos- sible contributions from the Library and Information Science area to the development of ontologies for the semantic web. To do so, our paper has been structured in the following manner. First, the methodology followed in the paper is reported, which is based on a thorough literature review, where main contributions are analysed. Then, the paper presents a discussion of the main trends, issues and problems concerning ontology re- search identified in the literature review. Recom- mendations of possible contributions from the Library and Information Science area to the devel- opment of ontologies for the semantic web are finally presented.

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.

Function, Purpose, Predication, and Context of Information Organization Frameworks

This paper outlines the purposes, predications, functions, and contexts of information organization frameworks; including: bibliographic control, information retrieval, resource discovery, resource description, open access scholarly indexing, personal information management protocols, and social tagging in order to compare and contrast those purposes, predications, functions, and contexts. Information organization frameworks, for the purpose of this paper, consist of information organization systems (classification schemes, taxonomies, ontologies, bibliographic descriptions, etc.), methods of conceiving of and creating the systems, and the work processes involved in maintaining these systems. The paper first outlines the theoretical literature of these information organization frameworks. In conclusion, this paper establishes the first part of an evaluation rubric for a function, predication, purpose, and context analysis.