Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Tan Tran: Ethical Dimension in Knowledge Organization Systems and Applicable Architecture for Intercultural Interface Design


Published on

V Międzynarodowa Konferencja Naukowa Nauka o informacji (informacja naukowa) w okresie zmian Innowacyjne usługi informacyjne. Wydział Dziennikarstwa, Informacji i Bibliologii Katedra Informatologii, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa, 15 – 16 maja 2017

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Tan Tran: Ethical Dimension in Knowledge Organization Systems and Applicable Architecture for Intercultural Interface Design

  1. 1. Ethical Dimension in Knowledge Organization Systems and Applicable Architecture for Intercultural User Interface Tan Tran, University of Lille 3 The 4th International Scientific Conference Information Science in the Age of Change Warsaw, 15th – 16th May 2017
  2. 2. Context : Integration of KOS in digital environments The pre-eminent challenge we face in knowledge organization and representation is heterogeneity of systems both at the level of expressions and structure of conceptual content. KOS can improve access to document contents in digital or hybrid collections and are essential in heterogeneous collections of documents.
  3. 3. Epistemic stances There is not one epistemic stance ; there are many, and we need to know how to relate to that situation.
  4. 4. A guide to Call Numbers : W. Gombrowicz’s Cosmos PG : Slavic, Baltic and Albanian is a subclass in the Library of Congress Classification system, under the heading Class P – Language and Literature.
  5. 5. A guide to Call Numbers : W. Gombrowicz’s Cosmos (2) Subclass PZ - Fiction and juvenile belles lettres
  6. 6. A guide to Call Numbers : W. Gombrowicz’s Cosmos (3) 142 Critical philosophy | 143 Intuitionism Bergsonism | 144 Humanism related systems | 145 Sensationalism
  7. 7. Research questions What levels of interoperability are needed to improve the integration among local KOS and to move forward to a global KOS ? Can cultural interoperability be the solution for knowledge discovery in multilingual and multicultural contexts ? Can we provide an intercultural interface by delivering full integration of KOS ?
  8. 8. Interoperability Carney & al. (2005) The essence of interoperability is that it is a relationship between systems, where each relationship is a manner of communication, exchange, cooperation and sharing. Miller (2002) be interoperable, one should actively be engaged in the ongoing process of ensuring that the systems, procedures and culture of an organization are managed in such a way as to maximize opportunities for exchange and re-use of information, whether internally or externally
  9. 9. Example of classification mapping
  10. 10. Different levels of interoperability ”While syntactic and functional levels may focus on protocols used for information retrieval and communication systems, the semantic level concerns the understandings and meanings of interchanged data”(Chung & Moen 2007). Winslow et al. (2001) consider cultural interoperability in military and diplomatic contexts (cited by Favier & Mustafa El Hadi 2013). Mustafa El Hadi (2015) further regards thesauri as one of the key elements for considering cultural interoperability and for examining KOS’ capability to accommodate complex cultural demands.
  11. 11. Theoretical construction of KO’s cultural dimension Beghtol (2002a, p. 511) Cultural warrant means that any kind of knowledge representation and/or organization system can be maximally appropriate and useful for the individuals in some culture only if it is based on the assumptions, values, and predispositions of that same culture. Beghtol (2002b, p. 47) Hospitality is the ability of a notation to admit new concepts appropriately and to accommodate them in the correct relationships with other concepts. [...] fundamental tenet of cultural hospitality is that knowledge organization systems should be ”permeable”to different cultural attitudes and practices.
  12. 12. Theoretical construction of KO’s cultural dimension (2) The integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations on the universality of human conceptual systems (Green, Bean & Hudon 2002). Most efforts are being put on the development of multilingual systems and local adaptations to feed those systems. But language is one of the many aspects (Hajdu Bar´at 2008).
  13. 13. Gender as a cultural aspect Olson Hope and her team mapped the DDC to a feminist context using ”A Women’s Thesaurus”(Capek 1987) When the terms from A Women’s Thesaurus were mapped to DDC, the term“feminism”was assigned the number 305.42 :
  14. 14. Gender as a cultural aspect (2) A space was created for feminism and feminist theory in the 140s (Kublik et al. 2003).
  15. 15. Towards an applicable architecture for intercultural interface
  16. 16. Domain Analysis as an approach The domain is something that ”has a boundary, a specific terminology, basic units concepts, terms, semantic relations, classification schemes and a shared ontology”(Hjørland & Albrechtsen 1995). The domain is“an area of expertise, a body of literature, or a group of people working together in an organization”(Mai 2005). Smiraglia (2012) argues that the domain is ”a group with an ontological base that reveals an underlying teleology, a set of common hypotheses, epistemological consensus on methodological approaches, and social semantics.”
  17. 17. Domain Analysis as an approach (2) Smiraglia (2012) considers the domain as a unit of analysis for the construction of a KOS. Mustafa El Hadi (2008, 2015) suggests the use of reference tools such as terminologies and thesauri to retrieve the construction and sharing of meaning which refers to a ”community of experts”or ”discourse community”. Guimar˜aes, Mart´ınez-´Avila & Alves (2015) advocate the bibliometrical approach to identify theoretical referents and “epistemic communities”within the domain of the researchers.
  18. 18. Building and testing the conceptual model
  19. 19. Conclusion The intercultural interface should be designed in such a way that users from a given culture would adapt a universal language to their context and use it to interoperate with other cultures, taking advantage of a distributed network of adaptations.
  20. 20. Epilogue
  21. 21. Epilogue (2) The indigenous Australian artists create paintings that represent places in their dreams.
  22. 22. References Bar´at, ´A. H. (2008). Knowledge Organization in the Cross-cultural and Multicultural Society. In Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 11, 91–97. Beghtol, C. (2002). A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems. Journal of Documentation, 58(5), 507–532. Beghtol, C. (2002). Universal concepts, cultural warrant and cultural hospitality. In Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 8, 45–49. Hudon, M. (1997). Multilingual thesaurus construction-integrating the views of different cultures in one gateway to knowledge and concepts. Information Services Use, 17(2/3), 111–123. Kublik, A., Clevette, V., Ward, D., Olson, H. (2003). Adapting Dominant Classifications to Particular Contexts. Cataloging Classification Quarterly, 37(1–2), 13–31. Mustafa El Hadi, W. (2008). Discourse Community Analysis Sense Construction Versus Non- Sense Construction. In Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 11, 302–306. Mustafa El Hadi, W. (2015). Cultural Interoperability and Knowledge Organization Systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Brazilian ISKO-Conference (pp. 575–606). Smiragilia, R. (2012). Epistemology of Domain Analysis. In Cultural Frames of Knowledge, Ergon Verlag, pp 111-124.
  23. 23. Thank you for your attention !