Knowledge organization

concepts, structure and semiotics.

Classification Studies, Fall 2020
Martin Thellefsen

University of Copenhagen / COMM

Four dimentions of understanding KO
(For somebody)

(About something)

(By means of)

(In context of)

Kilde: (Thellefsen, M. 2010)

Knowledge organization systems (KOS) is
characterized by:
• Term lists
• Authority files
• Indexes
• Dictionaries
• Classification and categorization
• Ennumerative and facetted systems
• Taxonomies
• Relationship
• Thesauri
• Semantic network
• ontologies
Termlists –
Endnote keyword
example
Classification – intension / extension
relation
Thesaurus and hierarchy

• Relatinon between thesaurus structure and

hierarchy
Tesaurus
semantic
structure examle
Semantic network – pragmatic and scalable
Particular ontology Concept
person
source
subject
Etc.
(Prior project)
Semantic relation
Kinds of semantic relations:
Is-a
Part-of
Instance-of
Polysemy
Equivalent with
Antonym to
Kinds of documents:
Articles
Books
Manuscripts
Etc.
Ontology in protegé
Universal ontology

Veltman (2006
 Universal ontology

Veltman (2006)
Understanding ontology:
Ontology is a framework of reasoning
How information and knowledge may be
considered within a semiotic framework

• Purpose, to eliminate the confusion of of information and knowledge as

either objective and subjective
• To demonstrate that information has a phenomenological side that is
independent of perception
• To demonstrat that perception is biased by collateral experience and
universe of discourse
• To address the semiotic gab between immediate object and dynamical
object – that the potential released by an object is indeterminate by the
sign alone
Ontology of sign systems

Sign systems at different levels of granularity

Semiotics and KOS
• KOS are intellectual systems designed to provide order in a chaotic world of
concepts and documents (principle of information structure)
• KOS are tools that are helpful in providing intellectual access to information
sources (information seeking / retrieval)
• KOS are systems of representation (principle of signitication)
• KOS are systems that depend on reasoning and language (principle of
cognition)
• KOS are fundamentally influenced by language and perspective (determination
of context and purpose/function)
• KOS are thus semantic systems that require an interpretive efford
(communicative effect)
• That interpretive efford is a semiotic activity, that unites representation (a
subject indicator – word/term) and concept/document (principle of relevance)
Semiotics and representation

Consequently,
KOS at the level of signification is concerned with semantic structure or the
determination of concepts to concepts or signs to signs (the general conditions of
signs being signs (grammar) (CP 1.444)).

KOS at the level of cognition is concerned with substance and categorization, in

principle relating phenomena to concepts or in KOS terms, subjects.

KOS at the level of communication relate to meaning, use and context and thus in
principle, determines the perspective of the representation.
The sign model
The dynamics of the sign
Footprint in the
snow
The object sign relation

• The actualization of the sign

• A footprint in the snow
• Motivation of meaning
• A sign may be percieved differently by different individuals
• Modes of reasoning
• Systemtic observation may give rise to different hypothesis about the person
that have left the footprint
The cognitive proces in semiotic terms
Semiotic relations
Collateral experience and retroduction
The timeline of reasoning

Hypothesis Analysis – consequences Criticque – testing

abduction derived consequences
Closing the gab
The relation between ontology and
epistemology in semiotic terms
Concequences
KOS should be investigated at least from these four corners

• from the perspective of

representation, thus developing
the information architecture,
• from the perspective of the user,
thus evaluating the systems by
involving systems interaction, and
meaning making
• from the perspective of concepts,
how concepts may be determined,
• from the perspective of the
environment, the world, the social
world, culture, that provides
context and perspective.
References:
• Broughton, V., Hansson, J., Hjørland, B., & López-Huertas, M. J. (2005). Knowledge organisation European Curriculum Reflections on Education
in Library and information science (pp. 133-148). Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and Information Science.
• Bruijn, J. D., & Fensel, D. (2005). Ontology definitions. In M. Bates & M. Drake (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science
(Electronic edition ed.): Marcel Dekker.
• Dahlberg, I. (1995). Conceptual structures and systematization. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 20(3). 
• Hodge, G. (2000). Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: beyond traditional authority files:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/contents.html
• Friedman, A., & Thellefsen, M. (2011). Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization. Journal of Documentation, 67(4), 644-674.
• King, B. E., & Reinold, K. (2008). Finding the concept, not just the word: A librarians guide to ontologies and semantics. Oxford: Chandos
Publishing.
• Poli, R. (1996). Ontology for knowledge organization. In R. Green (Ed.), Knowledge organiztion and change (pp. pp. 313-319). Frankfurt: Indeks.
• Thellefsen, M. (2010). Knowledge Organization, Concepts, Signs : A Semeiotic Framework. (Ph.D), Royal School of Library and Information
Science, Aalborg.
• Veltman, K. (2006). Towards a Semantic Web for Culture. Journal of Digital Information, 4(4). Retrieved from
https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/113
• Vickery, B. C. (1997). Ontologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(4), 277-286.