6/18期末考 6/22會把考卷發還給各位
考試範圍就是期中考過後….看起來就只有三份文件。FRBR、FRAD、KO。
(KO)這個有英文也有中文，但是中文卻不是英文的對照版。我們先來看中文。
(中文版)這個本來就要背起來的，你生活中的所有事情都是這樣子。
泰勒(Taylor,1999)認為「資訊組織」是指人類所有資訊紀錄的組織。各種的資訊紀錄有的是屬於文字，也有的並非文字，例如各種的書籍、影像資料、聲音資料、圖像資料或是各樣的網路資源及不同的資訊物件。
資訊組織本來就有做得好的跟做的差的，但是它就只有放好的。
好的資訊組織能夠提供使用者及時、精確並且具相關性的書目資訊。
而處裡資訊組織的機構除了圖書館之外，還包括博物館、美術館、檔案館及網際網路社群等等。
後面其實不用講，網際網路本來就可以做任何事情，包括資訊組織。
傳統上，在課堂名稱中，資訊組織被稱為圖書分類編目，但是圖書分類編目較偏向的是圖書館館藏目錄的編製，而沒有資訊組織的範圍大，資訊組織所含括的部份，包括種種的資訊檢索工具的製作與研發，也就是說，除了傳統的圖書館目錄之外，還包含了索引、書目、電子化的書目資料庫及檔案查詢輔助(finding aids)等等。而近年來，在美國圖書館的系所中，開始開設了名為「知識組織」的課程。這項課程著重在學科的內容，也就是對分類、索引典及標題表等主題分析的相關研究，也有系所準備將課程內容擴及敘述編目，特別是詮釋資料(metadata)的方面。
應該是這樣講，圖書分類編目的範圍是資訊組織的一部份。
The term knowledge organization (KO) (or "organization of knowledge", "organization of information" or "information organization") designates a field of study related to Library and Information Science (LIS). In this meaning, KO is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) (such as taxonomy and ontology) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts.
一開始他就告訴我們說他用的名詞是KO，包括我們這們課的IO，不過這都只是文字遊戲。這個領域當然就是跟圖書資訊學相關。到目前為止你就知道，資訊組織這們課，是從英文翻過來的。它的內容包括一些活動(多元編目、索引、分類等)於圖書館資料庫或是檔案館。資訊組織或是知識組織是由圖書館員、管理員、學科專家等來完成。研究範圍是有關於資訊組織過程程序的本質。
There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about organizing knowledge, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: “What is knowledge organization?” differently.
有關於這個KO的處理方式有歷史的也有理論的。
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.
傳統上的一些作法，在電腦之前一些的做法目前都可以用電腦來完成。各位可能會覺得我們剛好在轉換期，其實也不是，20世紀初期，圖書館員處在一個新舊交替的時代。18、19世紀，他們講話是講文言文。
The leading journal in this field is Knowledge Organization published by the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO). See also "Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization".
這些期刊在我們圖書館都有。
接下來就說明理論的方式，歷史方式就不提了。
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.
美國人認為圖書館學從19世紀的杜威開始。但是德國、法國很明顯地更早。
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)
人類根據自然的變化歸納出來的->用科學的方法分類(EX.會動的是動物，不會動的是植物)->圖書館分類(處理人類記下來的東西)
Among the other principles, which may be attributed to the traditional approach to KO are:
- Principle of controlled vocabulary
- Cutter’s rule about specificity
- Hulme’s principle of literary warrant (1911)
- Principle of organizing from the general to the specific
他認定在傳統分類裡面，在傳統的資訊組織呢，根據這四個原則。
我們已經講好幾個題目了你知道嗎？（！）
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.
光是這4個就主宰了100年以上。
Facet analytic approaches
The date of the foundation of this approach may be chosen as the publication of S. R. Ranganathan’s Colon Classification 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.”
The information retrieval tradition (IR)
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. 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”). The Cranfield I test found according to Ellis (1996, 3-6) the following results.
|
system |
recall |
|
UNITERM |
82,0% |
|
Alphabetical subject headings |
81,5% |
|
UDC |
75,6% |
|
Facet classification scheme |
73,8% |
你如果希望你找到的東西通通都要有的話，那你的雜訊會比較多；如果你要找的東西很精準是你要的話，東西就會少。
User-oriented and cognitive views
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.
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 is a recent kind of KO based on users' rather than on librarians' or subject specialists' indexing.
圖書館自己不設定立場，讓讀者來做分類法。圖書館的書可以對它做一個標籤對不對？等到量夠大的時候，書就可以重新分類。
Bibliometric approaches 書目計量學
These approaches are primarily based on using bibliographical references to organize networks of papers, mainly by bibliographic coupling (introduced by Kessler 1963) or co-citation analysis ( independently suggested by Marshakova 1973[3] and Small 1973). In recent years it has become a popular activity to construe bibliometric maps as structures of research fields.
Two considerations are important in considering bibliometric approaches to KO:
- The level of indexing depth is partly determined by the number of terms assigned to each document. In citation indexing this corresponds to the number of references in a given paper. On the average, scientific papers contain 10-15 references, which provide quite a high level of depth.
- The references, which function as access points, are provided by the highest subject-expertise: The experts writing in the leading journals. This expertise is much higher than that which library catalogs or bibliographical databases typically are able to draw on.
這篇文章好不好我不知道，但是我看你引用的文章就知道好不好。
The domain analytic approach
Domain analysis is a sociological-epistemological standpoint. The indexing of a given document should reflect the needs of a given group of users or a given ideal purpose. In other words, any description or representation of a given document is more or less suited to the fulfillment of certain tasks. A description is never objective or neutral, and the goal is not to standardize descriptions or make one description once and for all for different target groups.
從社會學的角度判定
The development of the Danish library “KVINFO” may serve as an example that explains the domain-analytic point of view.
丹麥圖書館發明KVINFO。
考試我們會問KO受到那些原則的影響，不能只回答標題文字，也要做出說明。
前面的FRAD，這篇文章它是一個model，一個模型。這個文章是權威資料的功能需求，到底要怎麼做？根據這個模型。
(目錄)在這裡面它列了屬性、關係，關係哪裡來？關係當然是跟著屬性。屬性又定義了這16種屬性，這16種實體的屬性，它的研究方法就是用實體分析法。
最後他告訴我們一個6.讀者的工作，在這本書裡面為了討論方便，他認為它討論的對象是權威資料的使用者，它分為兩組。
規範資料的創建者和維護者；
authority data creators who create and maintain authority data;
直接檢索規範資料者或在目錄、國家書目以及類似資料庫中通過受控檢索點（名稱的規範形式、名稱的變異形式/參照等）間接使用規範資訊的用戶。
users who use authority information either through direct access to authority data or indirectly through the controlled access points (authorized forms of name, variant forms of name/references, etc.) in catalogues, national bibliographies, other similar databases, etc.
這兩組user到底要做什麼樣的工作，總共有4個。
Four tasks representing all users are defined as follows:
查找(Find)
查找一個符合標準的實體或一組實體 (即：使用單一屬性、屬性的組合或實體間關係作為檢索條件查找單一實體或一組實體 )；或使用屬性及其關係在整個書目實體的世界中查找。
Find Find an entity or set of entities corresponding to stated criteria (i.e., to find either a single entity or a set of entities using an attribute or combination of attributes or a relationship of the entity as the search criteria); or to explore the universe of bibliographic entities using those attributes and relationships.
找到一個/組實體，前面那16個，符合你要的條件。這16個實體裡面，每一個實體裡面到底是甚麼東西，你看了就知道。
識別(Identify)
識別一個實體(即：確認描述的實體是否符合目標實體，以區識別(Identify) 分具有相似特徵的兩個或更多實體)，或確定受控檢索點的名稱形式。
Identify Identify an entity (i.e., to confirm that the entity represented corresponds to the entity sought, to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics) or to validate the form of name to be used for a controlled access point.
先找到，再辨認是否合適。
闡明關係(Contextualize)
將一個人、一個團體或一部作品置於環境中；闡明兩個或多個個人、團體、作品等之間的關係；或闡明一個人、一個團體以及這個人、這個團體的眾所周知的名稱之間的關係(如宗教教 名與俗名之間的關係)。
Contextualize Place a person, corporate body, work, etc., in context; clarify the relationship between two or more persons, corporate bodies, works, etc.; or clarify the relationship between a person, corporate body, etc., and a name by which that person, corporate body, etc., is known (e.g., name used in religion versus secular name).
Contextualize將…置於上下文中理解 ; 將…置於背景中考慮
單獨一個人名沒有用，這個人名要放進來，根據前後文，才有用。讀者工作就是去找到一個上下文相關的。
提供依據(Justify)
提供規範記錄創建者選擇這個名稱或名稱形式作為受控檢索點基礎的依據。
Justify Document the authority data creator’s reason for choosing the name or form of name on which a controlled access point is based.
Justify
vt. 證明…有理; 為…辯護; 對…作出解釋
vi. 整理版面; 證明合法
最後一個是調整。
你先想好這四個，我會問你是什麼。
題目是什麼？
FRAD把使用Authority Data的使用者的工作，列為這四個。
權威資料的使用者，執行哪四項工作？把權威資料的使用者分為哪兩種？
FRBR
前一堂是FRAD，兩個的取向都是FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS。網址列在最下面是標準做法。
我們問你在前面FRAD辨認出多少實體，有幾組？每組有幾個？實體間有甚麼樣的關係？書目紀錄的使用者會做甚麼樣的工作？
所以這兩個報告你一看就知道是做一樣的事情。
我們就考你Figure3.1這個圖在講什麼，在說明什麼事情。
每個人說一點就好，保留一點給別人。
箭頭是雙向的，你們的回答只有單向的。
這是什麼？FRBR辨認出的第一組實體。
我們考試不會再出別的，但是你看到第一組實體應該就可以知道第二組、第三組實體間的關係。可以嗎～
考前大猜題
1.權威資料的使用者，執行哪四項工作？把權威資料的使用者分為哪兩種？
2.請簡述FRAD的實體屬性。
3.資訊組織根據哪四個原則。
4.FRBR的第一組實體間的關係。
FRAD的實體共幾組共幾個，實體間的屬性為何？
留言列表
