Inger Beate Nylund, Using the Concept of Warrant in Designing Metadata for Enterprise Search in:

International Society for Knowledge Organziation (ISKO), Marianne Lykke, Tanja Svarre, Mette Skov, Daniel Martínez-Ávila (Ed.)

Knowledge Organization at the Interface, page 328 - 337

Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark

1. Edition 2020, ISBN print: 978-3-95650-775-5, ISBN online: 978-3-95650-776-2,

Series: Advances in Knowledge Organization, vol. 17

Bibliographic information
Inger Beate Nylund – OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway Using the Concept of Warrant in Designing Metadata for Enterprise Search Abstract: Metadata is an issue of growing concern in enterprise search. Several authors argue that adding metadata can improve the findability of content (Cleverley and Burnett 2015; Schymik et al. 2015; Stocker et al. 2015; White 2016). This paper proposes to use the concept of warrant when designing metadata for enterprise search. The paper combines the concept of warrant (Barité 2018; Beghtol 1986) with other concepts to analyse eighteen articles in library and information science journals from the period 2000-2019. The articles report on the design of thesauri, taxonomies, classification schemes, metadata or ontologies in work domains. The results indicate that the main warrants used in the articles are information sources’ warrant, task performers’ warrant, and work context warrant. The warrants illuminate where and how the concepts and terms in the designed systems are grounded. We argue that the concept of warrant is useful to analyse and choose different perspectives when designing metadata, but that other concepts and frameworks are needed for evaluation and implementation of metadata in enterprise search. 1. The aim and scope of the study This study is concerned with the design of metadata for enterprise search, and how the concept of warrant is helpful in this respect. In many organisations today information is created and used during different work activities. Enterprise search is an area that occupies itself with the retrieval of this information. Enterprise search can be defined as “search of digital textual materials owned by an organization, including search of their external Web site, company intranet, and any other electronic text that they hold” (Hawking 2011, 641). Thus, enterprise search is connected to the retrieval of information in an organisation or a company, that is, the work domain (Lykke Nielsen, 2001). However, search of digital textual materials within a work domain is not straightforward. There is evidence indicating that employees spend much time searching for information needed to perform their work, often without finding it (Hawking 2011). Surveys indicate user dissatisfaction with enterprise search applications (White 2016). According to White (2016, 188) user needs for a better search performance “cannot be achieved by technology alone”. A potential way forward in this respect is the use of taxonomies and thesauri for adding metadata to content. Other authors also pointed at the need for metadata in enterprise search (Cleverley and Burnett 2015; Kruschwitz and Hull 2017; Schymik et al. 2015; Stocker et al. 2015). As enterprise search is connected to the domain of work, it is relevant to look at design of metadata from a work domain point of view. The aim of this study is to analyse journal articles that report on the design of knowledge organisation systems (KOS) or metadata in the domain of work. Using the concept of warrant, the study categorises different approaches to the design, and discusses their relevance for enterprise search. The research question for the study is “What are the main warrants used for metadata design in the domain of work?” 329 2. Theoretical framework for the study In the design of metadata or KOS for enterprise search the concept of warrant (Beghtol 1986) is useful. Warrants are originally “bases on which library classification schemes could be constructed” (Hider 2015, 156). According to Barité (2018, 518), Beghtol (1986) was the first to propose a general definition of ‘warrant’ that opened up for other contributions than the original literary warrant. Barité (2018, 528) provided an updated list of different warrants, and also described the categories literary warrant, user warrant, cultural warrant, academic warrant and organisational warrant. Summarising the two articles (Barité 2018; Beghtol 1986), literary and terminological warrant take the subjects in books or documents, and the terminology of a subject field respectively as the basis for classification schemes. Scientific warrant builds on scientific disciplines and agreement in scientific communities, and academic warrant builds on the opinions of experts. Educational warrant also builds on scientific disciplines. Institutional or organisational warrant has the needs of particular organisations in mind, and enquiry or user warrant the needs of particular users. Cultural warrant as a principle may lie behind different classification schemes. Warrant is chosen in this study because it can illuminate the methodological level in the design processes, called for in previous research (Mai 2008). Warrant has recently been used by Hider (2015) to analyse and classify online schemas and vocabularies, based on their reported development methodology. Kwasnik (2010, 108) suggested that warrant can be used to understand, analyse, evaluate and design classifications. Warrant has its origin in library and information science and the bibliographic domain. For the purpose of this study some warrants have been adjusted to fit the domain of work. Literary warrant was originally based on the subjects of books or documents (Barité 2018, Beghtol 1986). In the work domain ‘literary’ may not be sufficient to denote all relevant types of information on which a KOS can be based. ‘Information sources’ is a concept used in the conceptual framewok for tasks (Byström and Hansen 2005) and in the cognitive work analysis framework (Fidel and Pejtersen 2004). This concept denotes information sources that are needed by task performers or actors. ‘Information sources’ warrant’ is in this study used for design that is based on (textual) information sources. User warrant is based on the information needs of particular users (Lancaster 1986). In a work domain people can have more roles than ‘users’ of information, for example ‘actors’ (Fidel and Pejtersen 2004), that is someone that is involved in actions related to work. Another concept is ‘task performer’ (Byström and Hansen 2005), that is someone who performs a work related task. The information use environments model (Taylor 1991) focused on ‘sets of people’ such as for example the professions or the entrepreneurs. ‘Task performers’ warrant’ is used in this study for design based on people performing tasks or otherwise connected to a work domain. Organisational warrant has its basis in the needs of particular organisations (Barité 2018, 539). As such it denotes a context around work tasks. But according to Taylor (1991, 226) “the organization is but one setting” that a group of people may work in. The cognitive work analysis framework (Fidel and Pejtersen 2004) has several dimensions related to work context: work environment, work domain, organisation, and activity. The conceptual framework for tasks (Byström and Hansen 2005) discussed 330 contextual and situational attributes. For the purpose of this study ‘work context warrant’ is used, because it can include various aspects related to the context of work. Summarised, for the purpose of this study, literary warrant is adjusted into information sources’ warrant; user warrant into task performers’ warrant; and organisational warrant into work context warrant. The warrants denote on what bases the various KOS have been designed. 3. Methods in the study This study analyses journal articles that report on the design of KOS or metadata in the domain of work. The journal articles were purposively sampled, and analysed qualitatively (White and Marsh 2006). First, I carried out literature searches in the databases Web of Science and Library and Information Science Source. The search strategy is reported in Table 1. One category in the search strategy was design, and the other category was knowledge organisation system. The categories were represented by different search terms by using the OR operator, and combined by using the AND operator. I searched in the title fields of the two databases. I also added one known article to the results. Table 1: Search strategy for literature review (design* OR build* OR built* OR construct* OR develop* OR generat* OR creat*) AND (thesaur* OR ontolog* OR vocabular* OR taxonom* OR classif* OR "knowledge organi?ation system*" OR KOS OR metadata*) Next, I narrowed the search results down to articles in core library and information science journals (Tuomaala, Järvelin, and Vakkari 2014), in addition to Knowledge Organisation and Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, published in 2000-2019. I read the title and abstract of references, and in many cases also the full text of articles, in order to determine whether the article was relevant or not. The criteria for inclusion of articles are shown in Table 2. I included articles that reported on the design of KOS or metadata, in a work domain or work setting. Table 2: Criteria for inclusion of articles in literature review 1. Articles in core library and information science journals (Tuomaala et al. 2014), in addition to the journal Knowledge Organization, indexed in Web of Science. 2. Articles in the journal Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, indexed in Library and Information Science Source 3. Articles published in year 2000-2019 4. Articles written in English 5. Articles reporting on design of KOS or metadata o Work domain oriented approaches included Last, I read the 18 included articles and interpreted qualitatively the warrants used for design. When interpreting the warrants I have taken into consideration both research objects, that is what or who have been included in the design process, and research method or approach, that is how the design process has been carried out. In particular 331 the methods sections gave information on these issues. The warrants illuminate where and how the concepts and terms in the designed systems are grounded. 4. Results of the study The 18 included articles are presented in tables 3-5 and organised chronologically within each table. I interpreted information sources’ warrant, task performers’ warrant, and work context warrant as the main warrants in the articles. The tables show the year the articles were published, the author(s) of the articles, the type of KOS designed, and the work domain connected to the design. 4.1. Design based on information sources Eight of the articles have based the design mainly on information sources. It seems that information sources' warrant more often leads to faceted classification or taxonomies in these articles as seen from Table 3. Table 3: Articles using information sources’ warrant Published year Author(s) Type of KOS Work domain 2005 Chaudhry AS; Jiun TP Taxonomy Integrated museum and archives system 2005 Chaudhry AS; Ling GH Taxonomy A business consulting company 2008 Giess MD; Wild PJ; McMahon CA Faceted classification Engineering design documentation 2010 Menard E; Mas S; Alberts I Taxonomy Artefacts Canada digital collection 2010 Wang Z; Chaudhry AS; Khoo C Taxonomy A graduate department in information studies 2012 Doria OD Faceted classification A department of an industrial group 2016 Hubain R; De Wilde M; van Hooland, S Controlled vocabulary (SKOS) A company within the biopharmaceutical industry 2019 Sarasa Cabezuelo A Taxonomy Mathematical logic course Chaudhry and Ling (2005) used sources in the form of lists of terms seen as representative of the business consulting environment, while also keeping in mind the company’s information needs. Other types of sources used in the design process are working documents “from the viewpoint of document usage” (Doria 2012, 286), engineering documents forming “a realistic representation of the domain” (Giess, Wild, and McMahon 2008, 388), and additional sources “related to the tasks of the stakeholders” (Wang, Chaudhry, and Khoo 2010, 258). The information sources’ warrant is here connected to both work context and task performers, in that the sources should represent the context or the domain, or be related to usage or tasks. The choice of sources to use for design of a KOS is an important issue in these articles. The conclusion of Wang and colleagues (2010, 267) was that “the DDC and the domain thesauri were far from being sufficient for the organizational taxonomy”, one of the reasons being that the organisational taxonomy depended on the activities of the 332 organisation, and the tasks of the stakeholders, and DDC was based on disciplines. Another feature of the design processes is the involvement of task performers through informal discussions on information needs, and an informal survey on categories (Chaudhry and Ling 2005), interviews on tasks and finding information resources, and review of the taxonomy draft (Wang et al. 2010), and observations of individual folder organisation of documents (Doria 2012). Chaudhry and Jiun (2005) gathered concepts and terms from internal and external KOS in the cultural heritage domain, and visits to museums, in order to develop a taxonomy for a cultural heritage network. Ménard, Mas, and Alberts (2010) developed a taxonomy for Artefacts Canada by means of faceted classification. Several different sources were used: terminology sources in the museum community, and existing database fields. User testing was carried out as part of the design process, however the users were not tied to any specific organisation or work domain. Hubain, De Wilde, and van Hooland (2016) used natural language processing and machine learning to create a controlled vocabulary for a company within the biopharmaceutical industry. The sources used for collecting terms were both structured resources (two biopharmaceutical glossaries) and two textual corpora (the first consisted of standards, norms, and scientific papers, and the second was based on internal documentation). Thus, the sources were connected to the work domain in question, even though automatic methods were employed. Sarasa Cabezuelo (2019) made a taxonomy for a mathematical logic course, using an existing subject taxonomy as a base, that is the Subject taxonomy for mathematical sciences education. According to the author the added entry represents concepts within propositional logic and predicate logic. The author referred to an encyclopedia of mathematics education when discussing the design decisions, thus it seems that educational warrant is also relevant here. 4.2. Design based on task performers Six of the articles have used mainly a task performers’ warrant. Different types of KOS were suggested in the articles: thesaurus, metadata, ontology, and taxonomy, as seen in Table 4. Table 4: Articles using task performers’ warrant Published year Author(s) Type of KOS Work domain 2001 Lykke Nielsen M Thesaurus A company within the pharmaceutical industry 2005 Ferraioli L Metadata A health care agency 2007 D'Ambrosio, DM Metadata Systems analysts 2011 Paling S Metadata American literary community 2011 Pattuelli MC Ontology Middle and high school social studies teachers 2016 Lund H; Ørnager S Taxonomy A United Nations organisation Interviews and surveys were employed to investigate task performers' views and experiences. The interviews are made from a work viewpoint. The task performers are interviewed about their information-searching behaviour (Lykke Nielsen 2001); search and use of sources (Pattuelli 2011); utilising the intranet (Lund and Ørnager 2016); 333 requirements expressions (D’Ambrosio 2007); potential metadata elements in the context of discovering and reading new literary work (Paling 2011); and the personal construction of classification schemes (Ferraioli 2005). In addition to interviewing task performers, several of the articles include some type of textual sources in the design processes. As for other warrants used, Pattuelli (2011) used a collection of digital primary materials, Ferraioli (2005) used incoming documents, Lund and Ørnager (2016) used an existing taxonomy and search query log data in a card-sorting exercise, and Lykke Nielsen (2001) used written user requests as well as other sources. Search query log data and written user requests can also reflect a user warrant. Lykke Nielsen (2001) used a domain study and person-in-situation approach, and can in this respect also be an example of work context warrant. Lykke Nielsen’s conclusion was that “Knowledge and understanding about work tasks and working conditions made it possible to shape the role and topical focus of the thesaurus” (2001, 793). 4.3 Design based on work context Four of the articles have used mainly a work context warrant. These studies are varied, and different types of KOS are designed: classification scheme, taxonomy, thesaurus, and information architecture. Table 5 Articles using work context warrant Published year Author(s) Type of KOS Work domain 2006 Vernitski A Classification Humanities scholars 2010 Milne C Taxonomy University portal 2015 Soglasnova L; Hanson M Thesaurus Non-profit community legal aid clinic 2017 Ruzza, M et al. Information architecture An Italian public organisation Soglasnova and Hanson (2015) explored the techniques of cognitive work analysis to evaluate a thesaurus for the library catalogue of a community legal aid clinic. The methods included a questionnaire and user interviews, word association tests, and a hierarchy exercise. The authors analysed responses to the user interviews by means of dimensions in the cognitive work analysis framework. Cognitive work analysis is a work-centred framework for analysing information behaviour in context (Fidel and Pejtersen 2004). It was found that the work environment “is constrained by two differing models of discourse” (Soglasnova and Hanson 2015, 915) and thus the social context played a central role here. Milne (2010) used functional classification and illuminated functions, activities, tasks and sub-tasks in a taxonomy for a university intranet portal. After defining the function of quality assurance/enhancement, Milne used a higher education business classification scheme followed by analysis and discussion to identify the activities. Tasks were identified by interviewing colleagues. The terms used in the taxonomy reflect the functions, activities, tasks and sub-tasks in the organisation. This approach can be a mix of work context warrant (functions and activities) and task performers’ warrant (tasks and subtasks). Vernitski (2006) developed a classification scheme for fiction for Humanities scholars. The author argued that intertextuality is central to scholars of fiction, and 334 therefore the intertextual approach was chosen as a basis for the classification scheme. In the development of the scheme the author created categories and sub-categories of types of intertextual links. In this manner the basis for the scheme is both the needs of task performers (humanities scholars), and the scholarly domain itself (humanities and intertextuality). A scholarly domain can constitute a scientific or academic warrant, but it can also be interpreted as a context for scholars, as a work context warrant. Ruzza and colleagues (2017) developed a model for the design of information architecture for websites of large organisations. The model was both developed and tested through action research with an Italian public organisation. The methods included an online survey, content mapping and analysis of the website, review of literature, and short interviews with web content managers. The basis for the information architecture is the organisation’s need for a well functioning website, that is a type of work context warrant. 4.4 Model of warrants As seen from the results, the three main warrants were often used together for the design of KOS. The information sources often originated in an organisational or work context, and the task performers were often part of an organisation or a domain. The use of information sources was often complemented with interviews with task performers. This combination of warrants is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Warrants in 18 articles in library and information science journals 5. Discussion The concept of warrant is interesting and useful for enterprise search as seen from this study. Warrant helps to focus on the methodological level in the design process. It provides a more specific level of detail when discussing design of metadata for enterprise search. It illuminates how and where the terms and structure in KOS and metadata are grounded. Warrant is able to add to the more general division between manual and automatic methods for the design of KOS for enterprise search (Cleverley and Burnett 2015). Information sources were used in several articles in this literature review to elicit terms and relations, both for manual and automatic design. At the same time the information sources used in the studies reflect the work domains in question. The terms gathered are not a priori decided on, they are connected to a context. Interviews with task performers provided insight into how they searched for and used information as well as what metadata elements were deemed useful. The role of work context is interesting. Sometimes as a background for design, and sometimes as a direct Information sources Task performers Work context 335 source for terms and relations between terms. For example in functional classification the context is more directly reflected in the terms (functions, activities, and tasks). Several different types of KOS or metadata were described in the articles in this literature review: taxonomies, classifications, thesauri, ontologies, metadata, and vocabularies. The results do not suggest that any particular warrant leads to any specific type of KOS, or that any warrant is more useful than another. What the results do say is that a mix of different warrants are often used together in a study. This suggests that it is worth considering both information sources, task performers, and work context in the design of KOS for enterprise search. Whereas this study argues that the concept of warrant is useful for the design of KOS, other concepts and models seem necessary for the implementation and evaluation of metadata in enterprise search. One such model is the theoretical model in Cleverley and Burnett (2015). This model shows on the one hand the KOS (manually and/or automatically developed). On the other hand is the implementation of the KOS in enterprise search (manual and/or automatic classification or categorisation). One possibility in the model is also automatic organisation of information without using any KOS. The model also includes two types of search: known item search and exploratory search, and suggests for example that known item search is supported by manually developed taxonomies (Cleverley and Burnett 2015, 439). Another model relevant for enterprise search is the evaluation framework of user interaction with metadata surrogates (Balatsoukas, Morris, and O’Brien 2009). This model suggests different possibilities for evaluating user interaction with metadata surrogates in a search results interface. 6. Conclusion This study has analysed journal articles that design metadata or KOS in the domain of work. The results indicate that information sources’ warrant, task performers’ warrant, and work context warrant are the main warrants used in design. The results are interesting for the design of metadata for enterprise search, because these warrants can provide help in choosing different methodological perspectives when designing metadata. Other concepts and frameworks are relevant for implementation and evaluation of metadata in enterprise search. One limitation of the study is that the procedure used for searching and selecting articles might have missed potential interesting articles. Other journals than the selected library and information science journals could have provided a different picture. More weight on automatic methods, and conference proceedings, could have supplemented the results. References Balatsoukas, Panos, Anne Morris, and Ann O’Brien. 2009. “An Evaluation Framework of User Interaction with Metadata Surrogates.” Journal of Information Science 35, no. 3: 321-39. Barité, Mario. 2018. “Literary Warrant.” Knowledge Organization 45: 517-36. Beghtol, Clare. 1986. “Semantic Validity: Concepts of Warrant in Bibliographic Classification Systems.” Library Resources & Technical Services 30, no. 2: 109-25. Byström, Katriina and Preben Hansen. 2005. “Conceptual Framework for Tasks in Information Studies.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56, no. 10: 1050-61. 336 Chaudhry, Abdus Sattar and Tan Pei Jiun. 2005. “Enhancing Access to Digital Information Resources on Heritage - A Case of Development of a Taxonomy at the Integrated Museum and Archives System in Singapore.” Journal of Documentation 61: 751-76. Chaudhry, Abdus Sattar and and Goh Hui Ling. 2005. “Building Taxonomies Using Organizational Resources: A Case of Business Consulting Environment.” Knowledge Organization 32: 25-46. Cleverley, Paul H. and Simon Burnett. 2015. “The Best of Both Worlds: Highlighting the Synergies of Combining Manual and Automatic Knowledge Organization Methods to Improve Information Search and Discovery.” Knowledge Organization 42: 428-44. D’Ambrosio, Donna M. 2007. “Conceptualizing Metadata via Repertory Grids: Exploring a Method for the Development of Domain-Specific Systems for Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization 34: 41-57. Doria, Orelie Desfriches. 2012. “The Role of Activities Awareness in Faceted Classification Development.” Knowledge Organization 39: 283-91. Ferraioli, Leatrice. 2005. “An Exploratory Study of Metadata Creation in a Health Care Agency.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40, nos. 3/4: 75-102. Fidel, Raya and Annelise Mark Pejtersen. 2004. “From Information Behaviour Research to the Design of Information Systems: The Cognitive Work Analysis Framework.” Information Research-an International Electronic Journal 10, no.1. Giess, Matt D., Peter J. Wild, and Chris A. McMahon. 2008. “The Generation of Faceted Classification Schemes for Use in the Organisation of Engineering Design Documents.” International Journal of Information Management 28, no. 5: 379-90. Hawking, David. 2011. “Enterprise Search.” In Modern Information Retrieval: The Concepts and Technology Behind Search, edited by R. Baeza-Yates and B. Ribeiro-Neto. Harlow: Pearson Education, 641-83. Hider, Philip. 2015. “A Survey of the Coverage and Methodologies of Schemas and Vocabularies Used to Describe Information Resources.” Knowledge Organization 42: 154-63. Hubain, Raphaël, Max De Wilde, and Seth van Hooland. 2016. “Automated SKOS Vocabulary Design for the Biopharmaceutical Industry.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54, no. 7: 403-17. Kruschwitz, Udo and Charlie Hull. 2017. “Searching the Enterprise.” Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 11, no. 1: 1-142. Kwasnik, Barbara H. 2010. “Semantic Warrant: A Pivotal Concept for Our Field.” Knowledge Organization 37: 106-10. Lancaster, F. Wilfrid. 1986. Vocabulary Control for Information Retrieval. 2nd ed. Arlington, Va: Information Resources Press. Lund, Haakon and Susanne Ørnager. 2016. “Company Taxonomy Development: The Case of an International Emergency Response Organization.” Aslib Journal of Information Management 68, no. 2: 193-211. Lykke Nielsen, Marianne. 2001. “A Framework for Work Task Based Thesaurus Design.” Journal of Documentation 57: 774-97. Mai, Jens-Erik. 2008. “Actors, Domains, and Constraints in the Design and Construction of Controlled Vocabularies.” Knowledge Organization 35: 16-29. Ménard, Elaine, Sabine Mas, and Inge Alberts. 2010. “Faceted Classification for Museum Artefacts: A Methodology to Support Web Site Development of Large Cultural Organizations.” Aslib Proceedings 62, nos. 4-5: 523-32. Milne, Christopher. 2010. “Developing Information Architecture through Records Management Classification Techniques.” Aslib Proceedings 62, nos. 4-5: 366-86. Paling, Stephen. 2011. “Developing a Metadata Element Set for Organizing Literary Works: A Survey of the American Literary Community.” Knowledge Organization 38: 262-77. 337 Pattuelli, M. Cristina. 2011. “Modeling a Domain Ontology for Cultural Heritage Resources: A User-Centered Approach.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62, no. 2: 314-42. Ruzza, Mirko, Barbara Tiozzo, Claudio Mantovani, Fabiano D’Este, and Licia Ravarotto. 2017. “Designing the Information Architecture of a Complex Website: A Strategy Based on News Content and Faceted Classification.” International Journal of Information Management 37, no. 3: 166-76. Sarasa Cabezuelo, Antonio. 2019. “Development of a Classification System for Mathematical Logic.” Journal of Information Science Schymik, Gregory, Karen Corral, David Schuff, and Robert St. Louis. 2015. “The Benefits and Costs of Using Metadata to Improve Enterprise Document Search.” Decision Sciences 46, no. 6: 1049-75. Soglasnova, Lana and Mary Hanson. 2015. “Socially Responsive Design and Evaluation of a Workers’ Compensation Thesaurus for a Community Organization with Selective Application of Cognitive Work Analysis: A Case Study.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 8: 905-26. Stocker, Alexander, Alexander Richter, Christian Kaiser, and Selver Softic. 2015. “Exploring Barriers of Enterprise Search Implementation: A Qualitative User Study.” Aslib Journal of Information Management 67, no. 5: 470-91. Taylor, Robert S. 1991. “Information Use Environments.” In Progress in Communication Sciences, edited by B. Dervin and M. J. Voigt. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 217-255. Tuomaala, Otto, Kalervo Järvelin, and Pertti Vakkari. 2014. “Evolution of Library and Information Science, 1965-2005: Content Analysis of Journal Articles.” Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 65, no. 7: 1446-62. Vernitski, Anat. 2006. “Developing an Intertextuality-Oriented Fiction Classification.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39, no. 1: 41-52. Wang, Zhonghong, Abdus Sattar Chaudhry, and Christopher Khoo. 2010. “Support from Bibliographic Tools to Build an Organizational Taxonomy for Navigation: Use of a General Classification Scheme and Domain Thesauri.” Knowledge Organization 37: 256-69. White, Marilyn Domas and Emily E. Marsh. 2006. “Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology.” Library Trends 55, no. 1: 22-45. White, Martin. 2016. “The Value of Taxonomies, Thesauri and Metadata in Enterprise Search.” Knowledge Organization 43: 184-92.

Chapter Preview



The proceedings explore knowledge organization systems and their role in knowledge organization, knowledge sharing, and information searching.

The papers cover a wide range of topics related to knowledge transfer, representation, concepts and conceptualization, social tagging, domain analysis, music classification, fiction genres, museum organization. The papers discuss theoretical issues related to knowledge organization and the design, development and implementation of knowledge organizing systems as well as practical considerations and solutions in the application of knowledge organization theory. Covered is a range of knowledge organization systems from classification systems, thesauri, metadata schemas to ontologies and taxonomies.


Der Tagungsband untersucht Wissensorganisationssysteme und ihre Rolle bei der Wissensorganisation, dem Wissensaustausch und der Informationssuche. Die Beiträge decken ein breites Spektrum von Themen ab, die mit Wissenstransfer, Repräsentation, Konzeptualisierung, Social Tagging, Domänenanalyse, Musikklassifizierung, Fiktionsgenres und Museumsorganisation zu tun haben. In den Beiträgen werden theoretische Fragen der Wissensorganisation und des Designs, der Entwicklung und Implementierung von Systemen zur Wissensorganisation sowie praktische Überlegungen und Lösungen bei der Anwendung der Theorie der Wissensorganisation diskutiert. Es wird eine Reihe von Wissensorganisationssystemen behandelt, von Klassifikationssystemen, Thesauri, Metadatenschemata bis hin zu Ontologien und Taxonomien.