Knowledge Organization: Bibliography as Synergic Catalyst



Knowledge organization is the field of inquiry wherein is studied the nature and order of knowledge that underlies all applications in information. Navigating natural orders, and creating and imposing useful orders, are the province of the domain of knowledge organization. Bibliographic control is an application of knowledge organization in which professionals “control” the arrangement of certain artifacts and their intellectual content for retrieval. Resource description, subject headings and classification are the tools of bibliography exercised especially by information institutions under the rubric of bibliographic control. Not only is a bibliographic record a form of synergic control, the professional culture that maintains the languages and techniques are themselves synergic. Bias is potentially everywhere, yet professional ethics require our institutions to resist it at any cost. An open question remains about what institutions are to do to bridge the gap between bibliographic control and imposing social bias. Another open question is whether more than one ontology (classification) could be applied simultaneously in a virtual catalog. Visualization of knowledge organization systems and components can provide useful navigational maps. From library and museum catalogs to medical and supermarket classifications, knowledge organization systems drive social behavior in every part of human endeavor. And for that reason, the effects of social epistemology can be both beneficial and deleterious. The synergy lies in the concept of cultural warrant.


Knowledge Organization Information Retrieval System Bibliographic Data Bibliographic Record Social Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beghtol, Clare. 2005. Ethical decision-making for knowledge representation and organization systems for global use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56:903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Buckland, Michael K. 1988. Library services in theory and context. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  4. Furner, Jonathan. 2007. Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization 34:144–168.Google Scholar
  5. Gabel, Jeff, and Richard P. Smiraglia. 2009. Visualizing similarity in subject term co-assignment. In Breitenstein, Micki and Loschko, Cheryl Lin, eds., Bridging Worlds, Connecting People: Classification Transcending Boundaries—Proceedings of the 20th SIG/Classification Research Workshop, November 7, 2009.
  6. Hjørland, Birger. 2008. Deliberate bias in knowledge organization? In Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis eds., Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5–8 August 2008 Montréal, Canada. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 254–261.Google Scholar
  7. International Council of Museums, and International Committee for Documentation. 2011. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model, version 5.0.4.
  8. Jacob, Elin K. 2001. The everyday world of work: Two approaches to the investigation of classification in context. Journal of Documentation 57:76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keilty, Patrick. 2009. Tabulating queer: Space, perversion, and belonging. Knowledge Organization 36:240–248.Google Scholar
  10. Kipp, Margaret E. I. 2008. @toread and cool: subjective, affective and associative factors in tagging. In Catherine Guastavino and James Turner eds., Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science (CAIS), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, June 5–7, 2008.
  11. Olson, Hope A. 1998. Mapping beyond Dewey’s boundaries: constructing classificatory space for marginalized knowledge domains. Library Trends 47 (2): 233–254.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, Hope A. 2001a. Patriarchal structures of subject access and subversive techniques for change. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 26:1–29.Google Scholar
  13. Olson, Hope A. 2001b. Sameness and difference: a cultural foundation of classification. Library Resources & Technical Services 45:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olson, Hope A. 2004. The ubiquitous hierarchy: An army to overcome the threat of a mob. Library Trends 52 (3): 604–616.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Smiraglia, Richard P. 2010. Self-reflection, perception, cognitive semantics: How social is social tagging? In: Elaine Ménard and Valerie Nesset eds., Information Science: Synergy through Diversity, Proceedings of the 38th Annual CAIS/ACSI Conference, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec. June 2–4 2010.
  16. Smiraglia, Richard P. 2012a. Jumping on the Bandwagon: Visualizing the Social Space of Social Taggers. In Annabel Quaan-Haase, Victoria L. Rubin, and Debbie Chaves eds. Information in a local and global context: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Wilfred Laurier University/University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario, May 31–June 2, 2012.
  17. Smiraglia, Richard P. 2012b. Epistemology of domain analysis. In Cultural frames of knowledge, eds. Richard P. Smiraglia and Lee Hur-Li, 111–124. Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar
  18. Svenonius, Elaine. 2000. The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations