知識組織化

Hjørland (2008)はKOへのアプローチ全貌を提供した。 ^[4]

『伝統的』と分類できる KO の歴史で主要人物の間に、メルヴィル・デューイ（1851 - 1931）とヘンリー・E・ブリス（英語版）（1870 - 1955）がいる。

Deweyのビジネス・アプローチは、およそKOのための理論的基盤を見出すことができる分野での知的アプローチではない。彼の関心は図書館のユーザーを支援する最適なシステムを見つけだすことではなく、どちらかと言えばラブラリー収集を管理する効率的な方法を見いだすことだ。彼は、ライブラリ収集を管理する標準化された、多くのライブラリで使えるシステムの開発に関心がある。

Henry Bliss（と現代の多くのKOの思索家）における重要な特徴は、自然の秩序を反映しようとする科学であり、そしてそのライブラリ分類は科学によって暴露される知識の秩序を反映すべきである。

自然な順序_(en)→科学的分類→ライブラリ分類（KO）

影響は、ライブラリアンが本を分類するために、科学的な開発について知るべきであり。これはまた彼らの教育で反映されるべきである：「ライブラリアンの高度教育の見地から再び、分類のシステムを教えることは・・・おそらく、システマティックな百科事典におけるコースと全ての科学の方法論、いわゆる彼らが今一緒に学んでいるお互いに関係する最近の結果を要約しようと試みるアウトラインを含むことによりより良く行われるであろう。（Blissから引用されたErnest Cushing Richardson、1935、P.2）

KOへの伝統的アプローチに分類されるかもしれないその他の原則は：

• 語彙統制の原則
• 特化についてのCutterの原則_(en)
• Hulmeのライブラリ権限の原則(1911)
• 汎用から特定への組織化の原則

今日、LISにおける100年以上の研究と開発の後、『伝統的』アプローチは未だKOと多くの方法において強いポジションを持っており、その原理はまだ優位性を占めている。

ファセット分析アプローチは、1933年にランガナタンが発表したコロン分類法に端を発するといえるだろう。その後、とりわけ英国の分類研究グループがこのアプローチをさらに発展させた。いろいろな意味でこのアプローチは「近代的な分類理論」と呼ばれるかもしれないことを支配した。

このアプローチを説明するには、その「分析」と「総合」の方法論を説明するのが最も良い方法だろう。ここで「分析」とは、個々の主題をその基本的概念に分解することを意味する。また「総合」とは、関連する構成要素と概念を組み合わせて、対象となる情報パッケージの主題を記述することである。

例えば本の題名などに現れる対象は、まず「ファセット」と呼ばれるいくつかの共通のカテゴリーに分類される。 ランガナタンはPMEST法を提唱している。すなわち、人格、物質、エネルギー、空間そして時間である。

• Personality is the distinguishing characteristic of a subject
• Matter is the physical material of which a subject may be composed
• Energy is any action that occurs with respect to the subject
• Space is the geographic component of the location of a subject.
• Time is the period associated with a subject.

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.

• UNITERM 82,0% recall
• Alphabetical subject headings 81,5% recall
• UDC 75,6% recall
• Facet classification scheme 73,8% recall

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 only statistical 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?

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.

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 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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.

The development of the Danish library “KVINFO” may serve as an example that explains the domain-analytic point of view.

KVINFO was founded by the librarian and writer Nynne Koch and its history goes back to 1965. Nynne Koch was employed at the Royal Library in Copenhagen in a position without influence on book selection. She was interested in women’s’ studies and began personally to collect printed catalog cards of books in the Royal Library, which were considered relevant for women’s studies. She developed a classification system for this subject. Later she became the head of KVINFO and got a budget for buying books and journals, and still later, KVINFO became an independent library. The important theoretical point of view is that the Royal Library had an official systematic catalog of a high standard. Normally it is assumed that such a catalog is able to identify relevant books for users whatever their theoretical orientation. This example demonstrates, however, that for a specific user group (feminist scholars), an alternative way of organizing catalog cards was important. In other words: Different points of view need different systems of organization.

DA is the only approach to KO which has seriously examined epistemological issues in the field, i.e. comparing the assumptions made in different approaches to KO and examining the questions regarding subjectivity and objectivity in KO. Subjectivity is not just about individual differences. Such differences are of minor interest because they cannot be used as guidelines for KO. What seems important are collective views shared by many users. A kind of subjectivity about many users is related to philosophical positions. In any field of knowledge different views are always at play. In arts, for example, different views of art are always present. Such views determine views on art works, writing on art works, how art works are organized in exhibitions and how writings on art are organized in libraries (see Ørom 2003). In general it can be stated that different philosophical positions on any issue have implications for relevance criteria, information needs and for criteria of organizing knowledge.

• 情報仕組
• 図書分類法
• 図書館情報学
• 個人情報管理
• 知識体系