The economic and aesthetic axis of information organization frameworks

When we examine how and why decisions get made in the indexing enterprise writ large, we see that two factors shape the outcome: economics and aesthetics. For example, the Library of Congress has reduced the time and effort it has spent on creating bibliographic records, while the Library and Archives Canada has begun coordinating the work of librarians and archivists in describing the documentary heritage of Canada (Oda and Wilson, 2006; LAC, 2006). Both of these initiatives aim at reducing costs of the work of description. They are decisions based on economic considerations. When engaged in deciding what fields, tags, and indicators to use in cataloguing, librarians consider the cost of labour and whether or not the system will use that work for display and retrieval

Collocative Integrity and Our Many Varied Subjects: What the Metric of Alignment between Classification Scheme and Indexer Tells Us About Langridge’s Theory of Indexing

As the universe of knowledge and subjects change over time, indexing languages like classification schemes, accommodate that change by restructuring. Restructuring indexing languages affects indexer and cataloguer work. Subjects may split or lump together. They may disappear only to reappear later. And new subjects may emerge that were assumed to be already present, but not clearly articulated (Miksa, 1998). In this context we have the complex relationship between the indexing language, the text being described, and the already described collection (Tennis, 2007). It is possible to imagine indexers placing a document into an outdated class, because it is the one they have already used for their collection. However, doing this erases the semantics in the present indexing language. Given this range of choice in the context of indexing language change, the question arises, what does this look like in practice? How often does this occur? Further, what does this phenomenon tell us about subjects in indexing languages? Does the practice we observe in the reaction to indexing language change provide us evidence of conceptual models of subjects and subject creation? If it is incomplete, but gets us close, what evidence do we still require

Perspective, Voice, Reference, and Warrant: A Sample of Ameliorations to the Multi-Perspective Design Requirement and Some Arguments Against It

In this concept paper I sketch these potential ameliorations at a high level and then work to address some foundational issues associated with attempts at communicating multiple perspectives in a single classification scheme. These include both Melanie Feinberg’s work on rhetorical stance of the classificationist (2010, 2012) and Birger Hjørland’s work on explicit philosophical grounding and classification scheme design (2013)

SOCIAL TAGGING AND THE NEXT STEPS FOR INDEXING

Social tagging, as a particular type of indexing, has thrown into question the nature of indexing. Is it a democratic process? Can we all benefit from user-created tags? What about the value added by professionals? Employing an evolving framework analysis, this paper addresses the question: what is next for indexing? Comparing social tagging and subject cataloguing; this paper identifies the points of similarity and difference that obtain between these two kinds of information organization frameworks. The subsequent comparative analysis of the parts of these frameworks points to the nature of indexing as an authored, personal, situational, and referential act, where differences in discursive placement divide these two species. Furthermore, this act is contingent on implicit and explicit understanding of purpose and tools available. This analysis allows us to outline desiderata for the next steps in indexing

Toward a Taxonomy of Harm

When we organize knowledge we act. The wholesomeness of our actions can be measured in the proportion of good or harm they do. How then do we identify and define potential harm in knowledge organization systems? A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose that we take inventory of the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. The aim of our work is (1) to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, (2) to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and (3) to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm