Metadata About What? Distinguishing Between Ontic, Epistemic, and Documental Dimensions in Knowledge Organization

Claudio Gnoli has been working as an academic librarian since 1994. His main interest is classification theory. He has published papers on this subject in several international journals and conference pro- ceedings. He is a member of the scientific advisory boards of the Universal Decimal Classification Con- sortium (UDCC) and of the journal Knowledge Organization, and vice-president of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO). Gnoli, Claudio. Metadata About What? Distinguishing Between Ontic, Epistemic, and Documental Dimensions in Knowledge Organization. Knowledge Organization. 39(4), 268-275. 37 references. ABSTRACT: The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowl- edge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item—what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these di- mensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject fac- ets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions— phenomena, perspective, carrier—is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of head- ings.

[1]  Vanda Broughton.  Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition , 2008 .

[2]  Hong Mei,et al.  Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval , 2006, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[3]  Claudio Gnoli,et al.  Freely faceted classification for a Web-based bibliographic archive : the BioAcoustic Reference Database , 2008 .

[4]  W. J. Hutchins,et al.  Languages of indexing and classification: A linguistic study of structures and functions , 1975 .

[5]  Dennis Nicholson.  The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization , 2003 .

[6]  Joseph T. Tennis.  Subject Ontogeny: Subject Access Through Time and the Dimensionality of Classification , 2002 .

[7]  G. Williams.  WHAT IS A DOCUMENT , 1948 .

[8]  Claudio Gnoli.  Classification Transcends Library Business , 2010 .

[9]  Rick Szostak.  Interdisciplinarity and the classification os scholarly documents by phenomena, theories, and methods , 2007 .

[10]  Roy Davies,et al.  The Creation of New Knowledge by Information Retrieval and Classification , 1989, J. Documentation.

[11]  D. J. Foskett,et al.  Classification for a general index language: A review of recent research by the Classification Research Group, , 1970 .

[12]  Patrice Landry,et al.  Subject Analysis and Indexing: An “Italian Version” of the Analytico-Synthetic Model , 2011 .

[13]  Chris Landbeck.  Issues in Subject Analysis and Description of Political Cartoons , 2008 .

[14]  Edward Higgs.  History and electronic artefacts , 1998 .

[15]  Achille C. Varzi,et al.  Formal Ontology in Information Systems : proceedings of the Third International Conference (FOIS-2004) , 2004 .

[16]  David Sanders.  Creation of new knowledge , 2005 .

[17]  Elaine Svenonius.  The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization , 2000 .

[18]  Aida Slavic,et al.  On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment , 2007 .

[19]  K. Popper.  Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , 1972 .

[20]  Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan,et al.  Prolegomena to Library Classification , 1967 .

[21]  W. Boyd Rayward.  Electronic information and the functional integration of libraries, museums, and archives , 1998 .

[22]  Derek Wilton Langridge.  Classification: Its Kinds, Elements, Systems and Applications , 1992 .

[23]  Yu Su.  Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Riccardo Ridi.  Il mondo dei documenti. Cosa sono, come valutarli e organizzarli , 2010 .

[25]  C. Beghtol.  Knowledge domains : Multidisciplinarity and bibliographic classification systems , 1998 .

[26]  Barry Smith,et al.  Beyond Concepts: Ontology as Reality Representation , 2004 .

[27]  Andrea Resmini,et al.  Semantic Retail : Towards a Cross-Context Information Architecture , 2008 .

[28]  C. Gnoli.  Vickery's late ideas on classification by phenomena and activities , 2011 .

[29]  Kiersten F. Latham,et al.  Museum object as document: Using Buckland's information concepts to understand museum experiences , 2012, J. Documentation.

[30]  Claudio Gnoli.  Themes and citation order in free classification , 2010 .

[31]  Patrice Landry.  Subject Access: Preparing for the Future , 2011 .

[32]  H. Albrechtsen,et al.  Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[33]  Joseph LaPorte,et al.  Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change , 2003 .

[34]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Afterword: Ontological, Epistemological and Sociological Dimensions of Domains , 2003 .