資訊組織心得

今天來帶各位看維基上的Knowledge organization。

會在維基上寫文章的人，大概不會是有學問的人，而是熱心的人。

如果熱心的人寫錯，還是會有其他人來修改。所以還是會有正確的資訊。

Knowledge organization同樣這個名詞會有不同的用法。在管理學叫知識組織。我們系的課程是選用最後一個Information organization的翻譯。各位學到現在可以發現圖資系有很多內容都是來自國外的翻譯。

Knowledge organization指的就是可活動，活動裡面包括五項。

In this meaning, KO is about activities such as document description文獻的描述, indexing and classification這不只可以用在圖書館學，這是人類的本能 performed in libraries, databases資料庫, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms演算法. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes知識組織的程序 (KOP) (such as taxonomy and ontology) as well as the knowledge organizing systems知識組織的系統 (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts.展現文獻以及裡面的概念

There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about organizing knowledge知識都有一套方法跟架構來做, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization社會結構. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: “What is knowledge organization?” differently.

Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding.

傳統的作法是用人去檢索資料(暴力)，後來有其他的演算法可以去解決這個問題，不一定是用電腦。

The leading journal in this field is Knowledge Organization published by the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO). See also “Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization”.

歷史的方面他列了六個程序、六個方向、六個角度。

1 Theoretical approaches

1.1 Traditional approaches

Among the major figures in the history of KO, which can be classified as “traditional”, are Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) and Henry Bliss (1870-1955). Dewey’s business approach is hardly an intellectual approach on which the field can find a theoretical foundation for KO understood as an academic discipline. His interest was not to find an optimal system to support users of libraries, but rather to find an efficient way to manage library collections. He was interested in developing a system which could be used in many libraries, a standardized way to manage library collections.

台灣人比較了解的是杜威分類法。他分幾類知道嗎？10類？錯！他分9類好不好～總類不是類啊～

自己去查中國圖書分類法分了幾類！他用了10個號碼0到9，看起來是10類，可是0不算。看起來是9類，可是有一類占了2個號碼，所以是8類。

他自己也說過為什麼分10個，因為阿拉伯數字就是0到9，人類有10個手指頭數起來也比較方便。

An important characteristic in Henry Bliss’ (and many contemporary thinkers of KO) was that the sciences tend to reflect the order of Nature and that library classification should reflect the order of knowledge as uncovered by science:

Natural order --> Scientific Classification --> Library classification (KO)

The implication is that librarians, in order to classify books, should know about scientific developments. This should also be reflected in their education: “Again from the standpoint of the higher education of librarians, the teaching of systems of classification . . . would be perhaps better conducted by including courses in the systematic encyclopedia and methodology of all the sciences, that is to say, outlines which try to summarize the most recent results in the relation to one another in which they are now studied together. . . .” (Ernest Cushing Richardson, quoted from Bliss, 1935, p. 2).

杜威的分類小故事是後設的，是後來的人們這麼想，是騙人的。

Among the other principles, which may be attributed to the traditional approach to KO are:

資訊組織以傳統方式來看去有以下四種屬性

Principle of controlled vocabulary控制語彙

圖書館的資訊系統裡面要用的每一個字都要經過管制。

EX. 臺灣的臺不能用簡體

Cutter’s rule about specificity Cutter所訂的字典目錄的規則

在這個分類法裡面他特別講到specificity，中文翻譯成精準、精細，在做KO的時候要做到最精準。

 Hulme’s principle of literary warrant (1911) 年代蠻早的

我們要組織資訊的時候他必須存在，我們不能去組織一個想像的資訊。雖然經過了100年，但是他在KO佔有了重要的地位。真正的學術是要能長久屹立不搖的。

Principle of organizing from the general to the specific

組織的時候類疊要從general到specific。你看分類法裏頭025.1還是G，但是025.12就是S了。

Today, after more than 100 years of research and development in LIS, the “traditional” approach still has a strong position in KO and in many ways its principles still dominate.

1.2 Facet analytic approaches 層面分析

The date of the foundation of this approach may be chosen as the publication of S. R. Ranganathan’s Colon Classification(冒號分類法) in 1933. The approach has been further developed by, in particular, the British Classification Research Group. In many ways this approach has dominated what might be termed “modern classification theory.”

他是印度人，1930年的時候還是英國的殖民地，他應該是上層的人，到英國留學的時候和別人成立Classification Research Group。

法國有一本很好的小說叫《紅與黑》，很多人去引用的是後卻寫Red and Black，這是他英文的翻譯名稱，應該要寫他原文的名稱才對。

The best way to explain this approach is probably to explain its analytico-synthetic methodology. The meaning of the term “analysis” is: Breaking down each subject into its basic concepts. The meaning of the term synthesis is: Combining the relevant units and concepts to describe the subject matter of the information package in hand.

Given subjects (as they appear in, for example, book titles) are first analyzed into a few common categories, which are termed “facets”. Ranganathan proposed his PMEST formula: Personality, Matter, Energy, Space and Time:

他認為萬事萬物都可以分為五個層面，就是PMEST的五個公式。

1.3 The information retrieval tradition (IR) 資訊搜尋

Important in the IR-tradition have been, among others, the Cranfield experiments, which were founded in the 1950s, and the TREC experiments (Text Retrieval Conferences) starting in 1992. It was the Cranfield experiments, which introduced the famous measures “recall” and “precision” as evaluation criteria for systems efficiency目的是衡量系統的效率. The Cranfield experiments found that classification systems like UDC and facet-analytic systems were less efficient compared to free-text searches or low level indexing systems (“UNITERM”)發現UDC(國際十進分類法)和層面分析較無效率. The Cranfield I test found according to Ellis (1996, 3-6) the following results.

Although these results have been criticized and questioned, the IR-tradition became much more influential while library classification research lost influence. The dominant trend has been to regard onlystatistical averages. What has largely been neglected is to ask: Are there certain kinds of questions in relation to which other kinds of representation, for example, controlled vocabularies, may improve recall and precision?

1.4 User-oriented and cognitive views讀者需求

The best way to define this approach is probably by method: Systems based upon user-oriented approaches must specify how the design of a system is made on the basis of empirical studies of users.

方法要符合讀者的需求

User studies demonstrated very early that users prefer verbal search systems as opposed to systems based on classification notations. This is one example of a principle derived from empirical studies of users. Adherents of classification notations may, of course, still have an argument: That notations are well-defined and that users may miss important information by not considering them.

Folksonomies大眾分類法(這東西沒有分類法，請各位自己去分) is a recent kind of KO based on users' rather than on librarians' or subject specialists' indexing.