Natália Tognoli, Suellen Oliveira Milani, José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, João Batista Ernesto de Moraes, The Subject Dimension of Authorship: A New Perspective of Provenance in KO in:

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

Knowledge Organization at the Interface, page 446 - 454

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
Natália Tognoli – Fluminense Federal University, Brazil Suellen Oliveira Milani – Fluminense Federal University, Brazil José Augusto Chaves Guimarães – São Paulo State University, Brazil João Batista Ernesto de Moraes – São Paulo State University, Brazil The Subject Dimension of Authorship A New Perspective of Provenance in KO Abstract: Authorship is a highly thematic and complex element since it brings aspects related to the specificity and context of works’ production. Considering that contexts and subjects are dynamic and vary over time and space, this paper aims to present the concept of subject provenance stressing that authorship can be considered as a product of a context – subject historicity, specific themes, and interpersonal networks. The approach taken to identifying essences in this paper is inductive. The discussion highlights that when considering an author as a subject herself/himself and as an access point – from the concept of subject provenance – it is delineated an organic relationship between the authors who participate in the same epistemic community, enriching the representation in the scientific literature. Thus an invisible but strong ribbon that leads to the complete subject context identification ties the author and the content of the document. 1.0 Introduction Authorship has been traditionally linked to descriptive representation – also called cataloging – in information organization. Fields related to descriptive representation of documents used to be understood as neutral, explicit, and easier to identify, however the concept of authorship could be expanded to improve access to information going beyond the identification of “the name of the author”. Authorship is a highly thematic and complex element since it brings aspects related to the specificity and context of production situated in a space-temporal framework (Guimarães 2017). In Literature, for instance, authors themselves can be the subject of literary studies, and in Philosophy subjects whose genesis can derive from their authors (e.g. Platonism, Socratic school). However, this approach is still incipient in the LIS scientific literature whose subject representation does not always consider the authors’ contexts (theoretical influences, schools of thought, points of view etc.). For this reason, the concept of subject provenance is especially important once it contextualizes the authorship as a product of a context, such as subject historicity, specific themes, and interpersonal networks. In other words, an author can be also considered a representative of an epistemic community, as “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain” (Haas 1992, 3); of an invisible college, as “a set of interacting scholars or scientists who share similar research interests concerning a subject specialty, who often produce relevant publications to this subject, and who communicate both formally or informally with one another” (Zucalla 2006, 155), or even of a knowledge domain, as “a group with an antological base that reveals an underlying teleology, a set of common hypotheses, epistemological consensus on methodological approaches and social semantics” (Smiraglia 2012, 114). Our hypothesis is that the more specialized is a domain the more an author is considered as a subject herself/himself – or, sometimes, an specific approach to a subject, and a powerful subject point of access with “power to influence” (Wolfram 2016). 452 1.1 The aim and scope of the study The concept of subject is a complex one whose perception, for subject cataloging purposes, depends, from one side, on the knowledge of cataloger “about the structure of the subject and, on the other side, about the nature of the contribution that the document is making to the advancement of knowledge within a particular discipline” (Rowley and Hartley 2008, 109). Hjørland (2017) points out that the subjects of documents are not a simple concept and comprises different views: from “content oriented” to “request oriented” ones. In this sense, the author highlights that “different definitions or implicit views of ʽsubjectʼ is connected to different approaches and paradigms in information science.” As a consequence, “the subjects of a document are its informative or epistemological potentials, that is its potential of informing users and advance the development of knowledge” (Hjørland 2017, 62). It is exactly on the determination of the epistemological potential of the subject that the author arises as an important contribution, once his/her approach reflects, to a certain extent, issues that bestow historical, political, economic, and technological contingencies on humanity. In this context, this theoretical research starts from studies carried out by Moulaison, Dykas and Budd (2014) and Szostak (2015a; 2015b) with the aim to propose a new perspective of provenance in KO (Guimarães and Tognoli 2015; Tennis 2016) for the representation of scientific literature. This issue goes beyond the traditional descriptive representation with the purpose of reaching the essence of subject representation. The approach taken to identifying essences in this paper is inductive. 2.0 Authorship and Authority Records: Perspectives to Subject Representation Authority data represent controlled access points and other information that institutions use to collocate works by a specific person, family, or corporate body, or the various editions of a title. For that, headings and cross-references for names and titles are constructed. In the bibliographic universe, guidelines and conceptual models bring elements to information organization in libraries based on relationships between attributes and entities. The discussion promoted in this paper can be understood in the conceptual perspective, when it was tried to shed light on the extension of catalogers’ lens toward subjects based on “who is the author” as a contribution to a better specificity in subject representation. The construction of authority records regarding person, corporate body and family is an intellectual work whose results promote consistency and, thereafter, credibility to the catalog and the information system as a whole. Consequently, it furnishes better elements to establishing further relationships with other records. For instance, a pseudonym is an element of cataloging which is registered as an authority access point. Milani and Sousa (2018) states that understanding the presence of pseudonyms in catalogs can support subject representation once they can offer elements to the contextualization of the subjects assigned to a document. The mentioned authors present some perspectives regarding subject representation of pseudonyms of women authors who chose or were forced to sign their works with male or ambiguous names, especially between the early nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries. 453 Knowing that some author used or uses a pseudonym to sign her/his works can complement two moments of subject analysis for cataloging purposes: 1) cognitive strategies: during the reading of the document, the cataloger would analyze through predictions if there are evidences that the fact of the author assuming authorship of the work through a pseudonym would somehow “shape de meaning” for the subjects approached, or would offer a different perspective of them; and 2) metacognitive strategies: in the step of identification and selection of terms, the cataloger can assign descriptors or create relationships stressing that a pseudonym was used as intellectual responsibility of that work (Milani and Sousa 2018). Metacognitive strategies, which are conscious actions facing a problem and an objective can be proceed through some models or guidelines. Orientations like the set of dimensions to authorital perspectives for classification presented by Szostak (2015b) can offer feasible steps to subject analysis as presented above. “The ‘who?’ dimension is addressed both when identifying disciplinary affiliation and in embracing personality dimensions and emotions under the intuitive approach to ethics. Disciplinary affiliation also indicates ‘when?’ and ‘where?’ an author is situated, as does the treatment of tradition within ethics. […] The ‘what?’ dimension is captured in several places, notably method, epistemology, and rhetoric. ‘Why?’ is even more extensively addressed in discipline, theory, method, ideology, ethics, and epistemology. And ‘how?’ is dealt within discipline, theory, method, epistemology, and rhetoric. Though the coverage of who, where, and when is limited, key elements of each is covered. What, why, and how are arguably far more important to the purposes of authorial perspective” (Szostak 2015b, 504). These dimensions can also be used to analyze sources that may bring data to compound authors’ authority records. While thinking about what have been viewed as sources of authority in determining information about persons in libraries, Dobreski and Kwaśnik (2017, 660) noticed that “persons are represented and distinguished from each other through common elements such as names, dates, and titles; however, closer inspection reveals the emergence of a number of critical differences concerning seemingly similar elements, as well as the scope and goals of the various standards and their respective definitions of a ‘person’”. Much beyond a simple set of names, an author represents – and is deeply influenced by – her/his affiliations, the authors who have influenced her/him, authors she/he has influenced, and her/his predominant fields of study along the time (Moulaison, Dykas and Budd 2014). In this sense, access points made up of elements related to authorship would appear to be excellent bridges between the users’ information needs and the documents in a collection (e.g., research on works produced by authors born at a certain time, who attended a certain place, who fought in a specific war, who have a specific sexual orientation etc.). Specifically in subject representation, “[w]hile the particular causal relationship(s) addressed in a work are the key aspect of what a work is about, other important aspects include any theory or method or data that was employed, as well as the perspective or worldview of the author” (Szostak 2015a, 595). Aspects such as theory and method applied, philosophical and disciplinary perspectives of authors’ work, and other space-temporal aspects related to them would bring more elements to the subject cataloging process and to users’ analysis of the relevance of the documents retrieved in information systems. Therefore, authorship comprises a subject dimension once the author is a representative of a certain epistemic community, invisible 452 college and/or knowledge domain, and, as a consequence permeated by certain epistemological and methodological approaches, theoretical influences, and dialogical relations with other ones. In other words, authorship is important to furnish contextual elements to subjects in information systems. 3.0 A perspective of provenance in KO for the representation of scientific literature To comprehend the authorship as a product of a context is essential to determine the epistemic communities that are involved in the production of knowledge. According to Meyer and Molyneux-Hodgson (2010), an epistemic community apart from producing knowledge also produces knowledge producers, shaping individual and collective trajectories. Accordingly, knowing that its genesis is imperative to know the actors involved in it, which are their trajectories and with whom they are related to in order to contextualize the authorship. The context discussion is present in archival studies since always. The most important archival principles are related to preserving the documents in their original context. Context can be defined as “[t]he organizational, functional, and operational circumstances surrounding materials' creation, receipt, storage, or use, and its relationship to other materials [...] Along with content and structure, context is one of the three fundamental aspects of a record” (Pearce-Moses 2005, 90). Another term used to describe the document context is archival bond, understood as being the relationship between records related to the same activity. Considering the authorship as a product of contexts and relationships being part of an epistemic community we believe it could be thought from the principles and concepts already consolidated in archival science, such as the principle of provenance – thinking it as subject provenance – and the concept of organic collection – a set of records resulted of the routine activities of its creator (Pearce-Moses 2005). The principle of provenance has been deeply addressed by archival studies since 1881, when Prussia State Archives issued a regulation establishing the Provenienzprinzip – based on the principle of respect des fonds – according to which public records should be grouped following the administrative units that created them (Schellenberg 2006, 175). The concept became a milestone in archival practice and today is considered the basis for what Tognoli, Guimarães and Tennis (2013) have called archival knowledge organization. In archival studies, the concept is responsible to reveal the relationship between records and their context of creation, bonding the structures, functions, and activities of the producing entity. The International Council on Archives (2007, 11) defines provenance as “the relationships between records and the organizations or individuals that created, accumulated and/or maintained and use them in the conduct of personal or corporate activity. Provenance is also the relationship between records and the functions which generated the need of the records.” However, this contextual support offered by provenance is not limited to archival documents and has also offering elements to other disciplines such as LIS and Computer Science. The concept has been applied to different domains (e.g. preservation of digital records, digital evidence, digital humanities, linked data, information organization, and subject cataloging) with different points of view in order to determine records trust, especially due to the increasing use of information and communication technology. 453 In LIS, Tennis (2016) advocates the use of provenance to understand semantic changes in classification and order of things over time, besides being considered also a key access point in information retrieval. In KO, the same author relates the concepts of provenance and ontogeny: “If provenance is defined as the chronology of custody and context (in the physical world often signaled by physical location) of some material, then we can see how revisions of indexing languages could change the context of a concept. With the change in context, the concept may change its meaning, and it is the meaning of the concept, in relation to other concepts and the documents they index that we care about in knowledge organization” (Tennis 2016, 94). According to Tognoli and Guimarães (2019, 565), the concept of provenance can be enlarged to reflections on knowledge organization systems to every access point which presupposes – and depends on – historicity and context. Still, an author as an access point is not only an intellectual creator of the document but also a representative of an institutional context and of a subject domain in which the author has a certain position. The idea of seeing the authorship as a provenance itself is enriched by the contextual approach that links the authors with an organic bond on a specific subject or interest area. This contextual approach is based on relationship, which is “an association between two or more entities or between two or more classes of entities. To specify a relationship, we must be able, first, to designate all the parties bound by the relationship and, second, to specify the nature of the relationship” (Green 2001, 3). As an example of the provenance applied to KO, Tognoli and Guimarães (2019, 566) analyses Birger Hjørland as an access point whose provenance embodies institution, academic background, theoretical views, research themes, and also and most important, the organic relationships – theoretical dialogues, convergences, divergences – that he establishes with other researchers of the same epistemic community. Another example can be furnished by a comparative analysis between the production spheres. Considering the two papers “Knowledge organization: Its scope and possibilities” (Dahlberg 1993) and “What is Knowledge Organization” (Hjørland 2008) it is possible to observe that although both of them are concerned on discussing conceptual matters of KO, they furnish different perspectives of such conceptualization. Dahlberg, in a more ontological approach, and Hjørland in a more epistemological one, because of their academic background, their historicity and their institutional contexts. In this sense, epistemic communities can be identified in such a way that a record on conceptual issues of KO by Dahlberg is more closely related to the literature for Claudio Gnoli, for instance, while a paper from Hjørland has a closer dialogue with Jens-Erik Mai. 4.0 Discussion We consider that knowledge about the profile of the intellectual background of an author is mandatory for a deeper subject cataloging of her/his works by providing more specificity. This knowledge would allow not only more specific subject headings (by incorporating, for instance, points of view or approaches for a certain subject), but also would furnish tools for the subject analysis and a wider range of subject relationships. Access points in authority records, following the Statement of International Cataloging Principles (IFLA 2016), include entity’s authorized name or title, entity identifiers, various names and variant forms of the name or title of the entity, as it is possible to see in the example below. 452 Olson’s authorized heading in Library of Congress Authorities, which was updated in 2001.04.27, and is available in this permanent link, offer the following description. HEADING: Olson, Hope A. 000 00339cz a2200121n 450 001 5360834 005 20010427154303.0 008 010427n| acannaabn |n aaa 010 a n 2001034168 040 a DLC |b eng |c DLC 100 a Olson, Hope A. 670 a Olson, Hope A. Subject analysis in online catalogs, 2001: |b CIP t.p. (Hope A. Olson) 953 a lh39 Observing the field 670 (Source data found), the single source used to extract elements for this entry was a book published in 2001 by the author. In Wikipedia, which is a source generally consulted for element’s extraction to construct authorized heading records when the cataloging standard allows it, the entry “Hope A. Olson” available at says: Hope A. Olson is Associate Dean and Professor at the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She was previously a professor at the University of Alberta. From 2000 to 2004 Olson was the editor-in-chief for Knowledge Organization and she currently serves on its editorial board. She also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Library Metadata. Olson has authored or co-authored over thirty peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, and has published three books: Subject Analysis in Online Catalogs, 2nd ed., co-authored by John J. Boll (Libraries Unlimited, 2001); Information Sources in Women's Studies and Feminism, editor (KG Saur, 2002); and The Power to Name: Locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries (Kluwer Academic, 2002). She received a B.A. from Gustavus Adolphus College, an M.L.S. from the University of Toronto, and a Ph.D. (1996) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Olson’s research focuses on critical analysis of subject representations and classification systems. Using feminist, poststructural, and postcolonial perspectives, she examines the biases inherent in hierarchical organizational structures. In spite of being well constructed, this entry is not updated. The last line brings important elements, which characterize Olson as an author in a more accurate way. The influence of the works of Hope A. Olson is assessed by Wolfram (2016, 336) through an egocentric informetric analysis of her published works, which demonstrate that: Hope Olson has built an international reputation as a scholar and educator over a professional and academic career that has spanned several decades. Of particular note are her contributions to subject representation and classification, inter-indexer consistency, feminist perspectives and research methods. The co-citation analyses, both from the citation identity and citation image perspectives, reveal a scholar who not only is influenced by researchers in a range of areas of LIS and other fields but whose research is also cited in many areas of LIS and other disciplines. The textual analysis revealed equally broad influences based on the noun phrases present in Hope’s work and those used by authors who have cited her work. Dr. Olson’s contributions demonstrate that one individual can indeed influence (or inspire) researchers within and across disciplines (Wolfram 2016, 336). Martínez-Ávila and Beak (2016, 365) analyze the epistemic stances and research methods and techniques of the thirty-three journal articles that Hope Olson published during the period 1991-2015, and identify that: Hope Olson has used and introduced several poststructuralist methods and critical theoretical frameworks that are a fundamental part of her legacy in KO. These studies bring important elements regarding the scholar Hope A. Olson, which can be part of her authority record in order to support cataloging and also the subject analysis 453 process. The Wikipedia’s entry or Olson’s book from 2001 (used in her LC Authority record) do not convey important elements that compound her identity and power of influence. It is important to sign out that the assumption of the name of an author as an element for a higher specificity in the subject representation of her/his works brings a special contribution to the building of a wider range of related terms. For this, two levels of thematic relationships can happen: subject to subject (in a more specific way) and author to author (both considered as a subject representatives). For this, the book “The power to name: locating the limits of subject representation in libraries” published by Hope Olson in 2002 will be analysed. This book is considered one of the theoretical landmarks for a cultural approach in subject representation in KO. The mentioned book is indexed under two subjects headings at the Library of Congress catalog: “subject headings” and “subject cataloguing.” Some other specific subjects, based on the author’s provenance and according to the subject specificity of the book would be: Deconstructive theory, Poststructuralism, Feminist theory, Gender and Information organization (or Knowledge organization), Race and Information organization, Etnicity and Information organization, Culture and Information organization, Dewey Decimal Classification etc. The assumption that an author has also subject nature can be shown by possible related terms that could be associated to “Olson, Hope A”. Once they share some common conceptions or approaches and whose additional search would be valuable when retrieving the book “The power to name”, such as: Beghtol, Clare; Berman, Sanford; Campbell, D. Grant; Frohmann, Bernd; García Gutiérrez, Antonio; Hudon, Michèle; Mai, Jens-Erik; Pinho, Fabio Assis; Tennis, Joseph T. etc. Summarizing, the assumption that the author Hope A. Olson herself brings a thematic dimension for a deeper subject cataloging of her book “The power to name” allows us to identify a wider range of subjects to be assigned to the book: Subject Headings; Subject Cataloguing; Information organization – Social aspects; Deconstructive theory; Poststructuralism; Feminist theory; Gender and Information organization; Race and Information organization; Ethnicity and Information organization; Culture and Information organization; and Dewey Decimal Classification. Such approach would also allow us to relate her name to other authors that share common perspectives. 5.0 Conclusion It is possible to conclude that authorship is part of subject cataloging once it brings elements to determine the subject context of production as well as the relationships that can be established with the epistemic communities which the author belongs to. As Dobreski and Kwasnik (2017) say, “[l]ibraries are not cataloging people; they are cataloging identities” in such a way that the author and the subjects of the document are tied by an invisible but strong ribbon that leads to the complete subject context identification. In such context, the author, in that specific document, acts as a consequence of a time and Cartesian frame space (Guimarães 2017) determined by her/his ideas, point of views, and institutional context. Studies that investigate some researcher’s attributes envolving her/his epistemic stances, main theoretical frameworks, research methods and techniques, themes of research, citation identity (reflecting the influences of a researcher’s work, as explained 452 by Wolfram 2016), citation maps reflecting who cited her/him and who is cited by her/him etc. can be taken into account while thinking about an author as a subject. Thus, when considering the author as a subject herself/himself and as an access point – from the concept of subject provenance – an organic relationship is established between the authors who participate in the same epistemic community, enriching the representation in the scientific literature. References Dahlberg, Ingetraut. 1993. “Knowledge Organization: Its Scope and Possibilities.” Knowledge Organization 20: 211-22. Dobreski, Brian and Barbara Kwaśnik. 2017. “Changing Depictions of Persons in Library Practice: Spirits, Pseudonyms, and Human Books.” Knowledge Organization 44: 656-67. Green, Rebecca. 2001. “Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge: An Overview.” In Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, edited by Carol A Bean and Rebecca Green, Cham: Springer Netherlands, 3-18. Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves and Natália Bolfarini Tognoli. 2015. “Provenance as a Domain Analysis Approach in Archival Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization 42: 562- 69. Guimarães, José Augusto Chaves. 2017. “Slanted Knowledge Organization as a New Ethical Perspective”. In The Organization of Knowledge: Caught Between Global Structures and Local Meaning, edited by Jack Andersen and Laura Skouvig. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited, 87-102. Haas, Peter M. 1992. "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination." International Organization 46, no. 1: 1-35. Hjørland, Birger. 2008. “What is Knowledge Organization (KO)?” Knowledge Organization 35: 86-101. Hjørland, Birger. 2017. “Subject (of documents)”. Knowledge Organization 44: 55-64. IFLA. 2016. Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. Netherlands: IFLA. International Council on Archives. 2007. ISAD(G): International Standard for Archival Description. Paris: ICA Martínez-Ávila, Daniel and Jihee Beak.2016. “Methods, Theoretical Frameworks and Hope for Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization 43: 358-66. Meyer, Morgan and Susan Molyneux-Hodgson.2010. “Introduction: The Dynamics of Epistemic Communities.” Sociological Research Online 15: 1-7. Milani, Suellen Oliveira and Brisa Pozzi de Sousa. 2018. “Pseudônimos de Autoras, Aspectos Contigenciais e o seu Protagonismo Social: FRAD, FRSAD e a Representação Temática em Catálogos Online.” LIINC Em Revista 14: 329-45. Moulaison, Heather L., Felicity Dykas, and John M. Budd. 2014. “Foucault, the Author, and Intellectual Debt: Capturing the Author-function Through Attributes, Relationships, and Events in Knowledge Organization Systems.” Knowledge Organization 41: 30-43. Pearce-Moses, Richard.2005. A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology. Chicago: Society of American Archivists. Rowley, Jennifer and Richard Hartley. 2008. Organizing Knowledge. An Introduction to Managing Access To Information. 4th edition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Schellenberg, Theodore Roosevelt. 2006. Arquivos Modernos: Princípios E Técnicas. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro: FGV. Smiraglia, Richard P. 2012. “Epistemology of Domain Analysis.” In Cultural Frames of Knowledge, edited by Richard P. Smiraglia and Hur-Li Lee. Würzburg: Ergon, 111-124. Szostak, Rick. 2015a. “A Pluralistic Approach to the Philosophy of Classification.” Library Trends 63: 591-614. 453 Szostak, Rick. 2015b. “Classifying Authorial Perspective.” Knowledge Organization 42: 499-507. Tennis, Joseph T. 2016. “Conceptual Provenance in Indexing Languages.” In Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance, edited by Victoria Lemieux. Cham: Springer Netherlands, 93-99. Tognoli, Natalia Bolfarini and José Augusto Chaves Guimarães.2019. “Provenance as a Knowledge Organization Principle.” Knowledge Organization 46: 558-68. Tognoli, Natalia Bolfarini, José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, and Joseph T. Tennis. 2013. “Diplomatics as a Methodological Perspective for Archival Knowledge Organization.” NASKO 4: 216-27. Wolfram, Dietmar. 2016. “The Power to Influence: An Informetric Analysis of the Works of Hope Olson.” Knowledge Organization 43: 331-37. Zucalla, Alesia. 2006. “Modelling the Invisible College.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 152-68.

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.