The document outlines the assignments for a course on knowledge media design, including an ontology task defining key concepts and their relationships, presentations analyzing frameworks and design challenges, and a final report proposing a solution to a design challenge. It provides examples of framework visualizations and discussions of concepts like design, knowledge, and media to guide the assignments. Students are asked to analyze relationships between pairs of concepts and propose innovative approaches to addressing knowledge media design problems.

1. KMD1001 DESIGN BRIEF &
ONTOLOGY TASK
Peter Pennefather, Oct 22, 2012

2. Assignments:
1. KMD Ontology task – 15% (due Sun. Oct. 28 online)
2. A 5x5 presentation in class an online – 15% (over term)
3. Active participation in class and online – 15%
4. Specific KMD framework analysis & critique brief – total 50% (5+5+15+25%)
•Preliminary Design Brief Summary (1 pages) – 5% (Oct 29)
•Design Brief Summary, Framework visualization, Annotated bibliography – 5% (Nov 5)
•10x10 Presentation of Chosen Design Challenge Conceptualization – 15% (Nov 5,12,19,26)
•Final report (around 3000 words) – 25% (due Dec 22)
5. Public group presentation on KMD topic – 5% TBD around KMDI holiday party

3. Example of a Framework Visualization

4. Example of a Framework Visualization
S a n d e r s , L i z . " A n E v o l v i n g M a p o f D e s i g n P r a c t i c e a n d D e s i g n R e s e a r c h . "I n t e r a c t i o n s
15.6 (2008): 13-17 5 . 6

5. ONTOLOGY TASK: In computer and information science an ontology formally represents
knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships among those concepts
In this course we are examining concepts related to how media can be designed and adapted to
promote building and sharing of knowledge. Within that context we are exploring the meaning of
design and waymaking, knowledge and interdisciplinarity and media and embodiment.
The ontology task asks you to discuss relationships between those pairs of concepts or any other
set of 3 pairs of concepts. The task has three stages
1) for each pair specify each concept with a short (about 100 +/- 50 words) definition; pick a
definition that you are comfortable with and that can be linked a reputable and citable source;
2) briefly discuss how the two concepts are related to each other and the overall goals of the
course as you understand them,
3) repeat the exercise for two more concept pairs of your choosing. You should end up with 5
pages of text.
The report should be about 5 pages (1.5 line spacing 2000 words).

6. Birger Hjorland’s review of Concept Theory

7. Conceptualization draws upon and supports human memory
Ranganath C and Ritchey M (2012) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13:713-726

8. Conceptual Design Brief

9. Kant’s conceptualization of concept formation
Kant investigated the way that empirical a posteriori concepts are created. The logical acts
of the understanding by which concepts are generated as to their form are:
1.comparison, i.e., the likening of mental images to one another in relation to the unity of
consciousness;
2.reflection, i.e., the going back over different mental images, how they can be
comprehended in one consciousness; and finally
3.abstraction or the segregation of everything else by which the mental images differ ...
In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare,
reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of the understanding are essential
and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. For example, I see a fir, a
willow, and a linden. In firstly comparing these objects, I notice that they are different from
one another in respect of trunk, branches, leaves, and the like; further, however, I reflect
only on what they have in common, the trunk, the branches, the leaves themselves, and
abstract from their size, shape, and so forth; thus I gain a concept of a tree. — Logic, §6
From Wikipedia entry on Concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept)

10. DESIGN AS A PROCESS FOR
FORMATTING DATA INTO KNOWLEDGE
Data/Information Input Biased by a Concern or Need
Design Learning Problem Diagnostics Systems
Concept Solving Engineering
Explore Comprehension Discovery Initiation Identify Objectives
(comparison) Application Definition Sensing Specify Criteria
Prototype Analysis Design Analysis Map Relationships
(reflection) Synthesis Decision Making Diagnosis Identify Alternatives
Specify Evaluation Action Planning Reporting Evaluate Alternatives
(abstraction) Innovation Mobilization Indexing Choose One or Two
Knowledge Output Useful in Addressing Concern or Need

11. Meeting Design Challenges
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Eng_Design_5-12.html

12. Before Dec 22, all students will have submitted a final design brief outlining their KMD concept or
process innovation and how their analysis suggests a re-design. The brief should have three sections:
1) Map/Indentify the Design Challenge Conceptualization and Desired Outcomes
identify the KMD domain that you will focus on and a particular challenge you will be exploring
provide a history of previous attempts to conceptualize the challenge and contrast them with yours
describe the design constraints, usability, and goals that are guiding your design conceptualization
provide a summary of uncertainties and gaps in knowledge related to the proposed approach
2) Prototype
Consider a few implications of the way that you have chosen to conceive of the challenge
develop a framework for evaluating the outcomes of the suggested solutions to the challenge,
think of situations and people who could find your approach useful
imagine possible impacts of different possible solutions consistent with your constraints and values
determine which of these you want to specify in greater detail and why
3) Detail/Specify
identify a specific use case and user community that could appreciate your solution
summarize why the solution is appropriate at the suggested time and place
analyze strategies for obtaining confirming your expectations
analyze potential sources of support for implementing further study and refinement of your concept
analyze potential resistance to or criticism of your design conceptualization
4) Synopsis

13. Integrative Knowledge Media Design Research Model
People Seeking & Sharing Information
(People)
Sense-making, Knowledge Building, Community-of-Practice
Colleges & Universities, Internet, Libraries, Media, Publishing, Consulting
Knowledge Media Design
a design process to explore ways of enabling
formatting of data and presentation of information
so as to allow groups to build, represent, and mobilize
contextualized knowledge within a system
Knowledge Systems Systems of Devices & Media
(Place) (Technology)
Academic Disciplines & Media Industrial Design & Engineering,
Higher & Professional Education ICT, Electronics, Informatics

14. Integrative Knowledge Media Design Research Model
People Seeking & Sharing Information
(People)
Sense-making, knowledge Buiding, Community-of-Practice
Colleges & Universities, Internet, Libraries, Media, Publishing, Consulting
Knowledge Media Design
a design process to explore ways of enabling
formatting of data and presentation of information
so as to allow groups to build, represent, and mobilize
contextualized knowledge within a system
Knowledge Media
Designer
(knowledge integrationist)

15. Matrix of themes and Challenges to be considered in the course
Sub-Theme: Having Knowledge & Visualizing of Actions Embodying Interactions
Challenge: Mapping Intentions & Consequences & Solutions
Design &
Wayfinding
Knowledge &
Interdisciplinarity
Media &
Embodiment

16. Conceptualizing Significance
in Guiding Research Information Seeking

18. Explicit
Tacit

19. Three Articulated Dimensions of Significance Perspectives
How the Information is Used
(subject)
client
Server
(instruments)

20. Theory & Model
20

21. Attribute Match Standing Authority
Qualities Relevance/Pertinence Certification / Authenticity Credibility/Trust
Validity (guidance/true)
How it functions? Perceived Usability Persuasively True Evident Quality of
Interpretational, (Material) (Real) Source (Ranking)
Epistemological
Precedence (perspectives/
insight/ discrimination)
Perceived Usefulness Persuasive Warrant Evident Credentials
What is it about?
(Germane) (Acceptable) (Clarity)
Topical, Ontological
Maturity (feasibility)
Perceived Utility Persuasively Feasible Evident Impact
How can it be used?
(Actionable) (Reasonable) (Reliable)
Motivational, Methodological

22. Attribute Objective Representation Subjective Representation
(Extracted from data analysis) (Introspective interpretation)
Match Relevance – Statistical,. Pertinence – Judged.
Claims in source (meaning) matching query string useful to question
Standing Certification – Warranted by Authenticity – Authorial intent,
Warranted linking of claim to journal, editor, publisher, revealed & accessible in source
evidence (agency) repository, organization etc.
Authority Credibility – Source’s Trust – Subjective recognition
Evidence in source (power) credentials, citations, history of trustworthy source

23. Three Articulated Perspectives on Information Significance
Reflection
Judgement
Meaning
How the Information is used
(diffusion/application)
Pertinence
(subject)
User
(governance/consumption)
MATCH
Server
(instruments)
Relevance