Scheme Versioning in the Semantic Web

This paper describes a conceptual framework and meth- odology for managing scheme versioning for the Semantic Web. The first part of the paper introduces the concept of vocabulary encoding schemes, distinguished from metadata schemas, and discusses the characteristics of changes in schemes. The paper then presents a proposal to use a value record–similar to a term record in thesaurus management techniques–to manage scheme versioning challenges for the Semantic Web. The con-clusion identifies future research directions.

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.

Is There a New Bibliography?

Describes the position claiming that the contemporary technologi- cal, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic environment gives us pause to consider the core theory and practices of bibliography, combin- ing bibliography of the work (in library and information science), bibliography of the text (in textual studies and scholarly editing), and bibliography of the artifact (in book history and now digital forensics), and calls for collaborative multidisciplinary research at the intersection of these fields to ask, is there a new bibliography?

Desafíos de la movilización social para generar transformaciones en las instituciones: la movilización fallida en Egipto periodo 2010-2013

Este estudio de caso busca evaluar los alcances y limitaciones que tiene la movilización social para lograr transformaciones en las instituciones a partir del estudio de la movilización social en Egipto durante el período 2010-2013. Se analiza y se explica en qué sentido las instituciones de movimiento lento, como las estructuras de poder y estructuras mentales, han frustrado lo acontecido en Egipto conocido como la primavera árabe. Siguiendo la perspectiva de las instituciones de Gérard Roland y Alejandro Portes, se avanza hacia el resultado de la investigación de que las instituciones de movimiento lento tienen en cuenta aspectos estructurales de una sociedad tales como el poder y la cultura. Por ello, no pueden ser cambiadas con facilidad ya que cuentan con bases sólidas que han sido construidas mediante procesos históricos fundamentados en ideologías y valores.