-
- Instructor:
Jens-Erik Mai
- Phone: 416.978.7097
- Office: BL 641
- Office hours: By
appointment
Class meets: Wednesday 9:00pm-12:00noon in
BL 313
[About]
[Study Tips]
[Schedule]
[Assignments]
[Advisory Groups] [Resources]
[Readings]
The purpose and content
of this course is in FIS's course catalog described as:
“Knowledge organization with respect to subject analysis and
retrieval. Theories and principles. Design, application, and
evaluation of various methods for accessing documents and
information, using controlled vocabularies and natural language
(thesauri, hypertext, expert systems). Emphasis on computerized
systems including the internet.”
After years, even
decades, of focus on
automating the storage, organization, and retrieval of documents, information,
knowledge there is now a growing demand for people who know how
to design and build controlled vocabularies and manually index
documents using such controlled vocabularies. The aim of this
course is to prepare you to lead a team that can construct a
controlled vocabulary and develop policies and practices for
representing information. The course will provide you with
knowledge about the fundamental theories and principles for
representation of information and design of controlled
vocabularies.
Representation of the content, topic, subject
matter, aboutness of documents is central to the success of any
information retrieval system. This course surveys different
approaches, techniques, and methods for representing the subject
matter of documents - with a bias towards manual methods.
A main focus in the course
is design and construction of controlled
vocabularies. There are many other types of controlled
vocabularies and many terms for the same types of controlled
vocabularies. While we will not go into detail about these
difference we will briefly explore these and focus our attention
on the thesaurus. The thesaurus is the most complex and
advanced type of controlled vocabulary and by mastering the
design of thesauri, you will gain a good grasp on other types of
controlled vocabularies.
This course will prepare
you to take up the challenges of designing controlled
vocabularies by gaining practical experience in constructing a
thesaurus. Much of the course is centered around a team
project in which you will analyze a domain (of your own choice)
and construct a small thesaurus for it. For this part of
the course, I will not go over the
readings or lecture in class instead you should discuss the
readings with your teammates and use the readings to guide you
through the construction process. I will meet with the teams
each week and we can discuss the readings then if desired.
The objective of the course is to give a solid
understanding of the principles, issues, and problems in
subject representation and design and construction of controlled
vocabularies. More specifically the students will:
-
be exposed to trends in theories of subject
representation
-
learn about how to represent documents
-
become knowledgeable about different methods
for subject representation
-
learn about how
to develop indexing policies locally
-
learn how to design,
construct, and maintain a thesaurus using standard manual
methods
-
be able to plan and
implement a project to design and construct a controlled
vocabulary.
Please also see the general notes on my classes. [link]
Study Tips
The outcome of this course depends to a large degree on your
active participation. This means that it is important that you
have read and understood the assigned texts for each class. You
need to read the texts in such a manner that you can ask and
answer questions about them. In other words, you control the
outcome of this course. It is your responsibility to do what is
necessary to understand the texts, e.g. read the texts multiple
times, write an abstract or outline of the texts, participate in
study groups.
I urge you to use a critical approach when reading the texts.
This means that for each text you should think about what the
main point of the text is. What is the author’s message? What is
it that he/she wants to convey? Do you agree with the author?
Why/why not? Place the text in a context. Consider for example
how the text/author--consciously or unconsciously--relates to
other texts in this course and other courses. How does it relate
to other discussions we have had in this course? Etc., etc.
Always remember to ask and answer the most important question
when facing scientific and scholarly literature: SO WHAT? This
is a simple way to evaluate whether the text makes a difference
to you, and whether it brings the field a step further.
Ideally, you
should read all assigned readings for each class meeting. I have
provided two mechanisms to guide you and help you prioritize
your reading:
1) I have listed all the readings in a suggested reading order.
This order reflects a progression through the issues that I
think will be helpful.
2) I have classified each reading as basic, recommended, or
optional.
Basic (B) material
should be mastered by every student, recommended (R)
material should be mastered by students seeking a good knowledge
of the subject, and optional (O) material should be
mastered by students with special interest and aptitudes.
You should note that sometimes the
full, best, or most comprehensive understanding of a basic
reading may not come before reading an optional reading.
It is your
choice which readings to read if you cannot read all of them.
However, most of our discussions, exercises and assignments will
assume that you've read and understood all the material through
the recommended level.
Class Schedule
|
Date |
|
|
Theme |
|
Readings |
Wednesday
Jan. 10
|
|
|
Introduction to the course |
|
|
Wednesday
Jan. 17
|
|
|
Aboutness and subject analysis
|
|
Frohmann, 1990. (R)
Hjorland, 1992. (R)
Wilson. 1968.
Intro (B)
Wilson. 1968. Chap 1 (O)
Wilson. 1968. Chap 2 (O)
Wilson. 1968. Chap 3 (O)
Wilson. 1968. Chap 5 (R)
Wilson. 1968. Chap 6 (R)
|
Wednesday
Jan. 24
|
|
|
Subject indexing, subject access, subject analysis
|
|
ISO. 1985.
(B)
Hjørland. 1997. (R)
Bates. 1998.
(O)
Mai. 2001.
(O)
Fidel. 1994.
(B)
Mai. 2005. (O)
Swift. 1979.
(R)
Brown et. al. 1996. (O)
Feinberg. 2006. (R)
|
Wednesday
Jan. 31
|
|
|
Subject languages
Assignment 1 is due |
|
Rosenfeld & Morville. 2002. (O)
Rowley. 1994. (R)
Svenonius, 2000. Chap 8 (R)
Svenonius, 2000. Chap 9 (R)
Svenonius, 2000. Chap 10 (R)
|
Wednesday
Feb. 7
|
|
|
Overview of the project and the thesaurus
construction process
Phase 0: Preparing Phase 1: Defining and analyzing the domain
Team Meeting
|
|
Aitchison. 2000. Sec. A, B, C and J.
ISO. 1986.
ANSI/NISO. 2005.
Soergel. 1974. Chap. C.
Svenonius, 2003.Hjørland.
2004.
Hjørland.
2002.
Nielsen. 2001.
Tennis. 2003. |
Wednesday
Feb. 14
|
|
|
Phase 2: Collecting, sorting, and merging terms
Team Meeting
|
|
Soergel. 1974.
F0, F1, and
F2. |
Wednesday
Feb. 21
|
|
|
No class. Study week. |
|
|
Wednesday
Feb. 28
|
|
|
Phase 3: Selecting descriptors and establishing
relationships Team Meeting
Assignment 2 is due
|
|
Aitchison. 2000. D,
E, & F1.
Soergel. 1974. E & F3. |
Wednesday
Mar. 7
|
|
|
Phase 4: Constructing the classified schedules
Team Meeting
|
|
Aitchison. 2000. F2, F3, &
G.
Soergel. 1974. F4 & D4.0-D4.3.6. |
Wednesday
Mar. 14
|
|
|
Phase 5: Preparing the final product
Team Meeting
|
|
Aitchison. 2000. Sec. H.
Soergel. 1974. F5 & D0-D3.4. |
Wednesday
Mar. 21
|
|
|
Catch-up
|
|
|
Wednesday
Mar. 28
|
|
|
Presentations
|
|
|
Wednesday
Apr. 4
|
|
|
Presentations
|
|
|
Wednesday
Apr. 11 |
|
|
Presentations Catch up, summary, conclusions, and evaluation of
the course
Assignment 4 is due |
|
|
|
Assignments
There are 4
required assignments in this course - three essays and design
and presentation of a thesaurus:
For all written
assignments: They cannot be turned in as e-mails or as attachments to e-mails. The
paper should be double-spaced, single paged, Times Roman font 12, stapled in
the upper left corner, and follow standard citation practices
(such as
Chicago,
APA,
MLA).
Please review the material you covered in Cite it Right,
familiarize yourself with this
site and
UofT's policy, and consult the
writing centre, if necessary.
Here
is a general statement on what I look for in a paper.
Assignment 1:
Context in Indexing
Many of the authors we have read so far in the
course have discussed the notion of context in various ways.
For this assignment I want you to write an essay about the
notion of context and how it influences decisions that indexers
have to make in the indexing process. What, if anything, in the
context should indexers consider? How? Why/why not? You must
draw on the readings and you can draw on your experiences with
the exercises and other experiences for this essay.
The essay should be less than 500 words long.
Due date: This
assignment is due in class on
Wednesday Jan. 31.
Criteria:
You will be graded according to the discussion's and analysis'
clarity, organization, depth, clarity of evaluative and analytic
comments, and the demonstrated understanding of the issues
involved in the evaluation of indexing and the extend to which
class readings and other literature are incorporated in the
discussion and analysis. See
here for a few other tips.
For this assignment I want you to
reflect on what we have discussed and read so far. Your task is
to write either one or two essays (in
response to question 1 and/or 2) that start with two specific
questions -- you can can elaborate and expand the discussion from there.
Question 1:
Many scholars of indexing theory talk about indexing as a
process that consists of multiple steps. The ISO standard
describes the indexing process as consisting of three steps:
a) examining the document and establishing its subject content;
b) identifying the principal concepts present in the subject;
c) expressing these concepts in the terms of the indexing language
Please explain and clarify the decisions and
problems that are related to each of these three steps. You may
exemplify this with the indexing of a particular document.
Question 2:
The indexing literature describes a number of different
approaches to indexing and we have discussed some of these in
this course. Please explain and clarify some of these approaches
to indexing and discuss their differences and their significance
for indexing practice.
The combined length of the essay(s) should be no
less than 1000 words and no more than 1500 words long.
Due date: This
assignment is due in class on
Wednesday Feb. 28.
Criteria:
You will be graded according to your essays' organization,
depth, clarity of evaluative and analytic comments, and the
demonstrated understanding of the issues involved in indexing,
as well as on the extent to which class readings and other
literature are incorporated in the discussion and analysis. See
here for a few other tips.
Thesaurus
construction. (Teamwork)
Participate in the design and construction of a thesaurus.
Presentation. (Teamwork)
Each team will present their thesaurus to the class. You should
present the thesaurus' features and discuss problems you
encountered and how you solved them. Make sure to talk
about some of the following issues:
-
The
domain. How it the domain defined, what are some
neighboring fields, what are some of the major developments
and/or discussions in the field, etc.
-
The
users of the thesaurus. Who have you constructed the
thesaurus for?
-
Major
problems that you encountered and how you solved the
problems.
-
The
sources that you used for harvesting the terms and your
'method' for including terms in your thesaurus.
-
Your
use of an expert and/or user group.
-
The
thesaurus itself. Including how it works and examples of
how the thesaurus can be used for indexing and searching.
-
Any
special features that you want to point out.
This is a
team effort. Everyone in the team should participate in
the presentation at some level, if only in preparation. It
is OK, however, to delegate primary speaking responsibilities to
part of the group.
Please
make your thesaurus available to the class at least 36 hours
before your presentation. You can send your thesaurus to to
the class lists as an attachment or forward a url where the thesaurus is
located.
Criteria: You will be graded according to the degree to
which you engage in the exercise, the depth of your
considerations for decisions you make throughout the project,
and the clarity of your presentation of those decisions.
Assignment 4:
Final paper
For your final paper, I would like you to reflect upon your
thesaurus construction experience and write an essay where you,
a) discuss your experience, what you have learned and how you
potentially would do things differently next time around, or
b) discuss the use of contextual information
in planning and designing a thesaurus, in other words, how can
information about the domain, the use, the users, the literature, etc. be used
when constructing a thesaurus? or c) explore and discuss the use of
controlled vocabularies in a particular domain or website.
You must cite and include the relevant literature.
The
paper should be short and focused - about 1500 words.
Due date:
This assignment is due
in class on Wednesday,
April 11.
Criteria:
You will be graded according to the discussion's and analysis'
clarity, organization, depth, clarity of evaluative and analytic
comments, and the demonstrated understanding of the issues
involved in the design and construction of thesauri and the
extend to which class readings and other literature are
incorporated in the discussion and analysis. See
here for a few other tips.
Advisory Group
Each team in the
thesaurus construction project is part of an advisory group and each
advisory group consists of two-three teams. The advisory groups
should meet as often as the groups find it necessary.
The
purpose of the advisory group is to support each other
through the thesaurus construction process. The agenda for
the group meetings should be set by the groups themselves. However, I suggest that the agenda looks something
like this:
1. Status report from each team
2. Major problems in the teams
3. Problems to bring to the class discussions
and for the last meeting, it is a good idea to review each others' final
products.
|
Advisory Groups: |
|
Group A |
Group B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources
There are many controlled
vocabularies, thesauri, and classification systems and information about
these systems, their use, application, design, and architecture available on the web. Here is list of
sites with information about indexing, controlled vocabularies, and links to other
resources:
Asilomar Institute for Information
Architecture Library
"The IA Library is a selection of resources related to
the field of information architecture. The collection
includes articles, books, blogs, and more."
|
Karl Fast, Fred Leise and Mike
Steckel
"Information architects are fascinated with faceted
classification and its application to information
architecture problems. However, facets remain difficult
to understand and there are few options for learning
about them."
|
Findability.org
Comprehensive list of information about information
architecture and links to various IA stuff.
|
Traugott Koch
“Controlled vocabularies, thesauri and classification
systems available in the WWW.” |
Michael Middleton
"Links to examples of thesauri and to classification
schemes that may be used for controlling database or WWW
site subject content."
|
National Library of Canada
"The resources in this section are directed at persons
interested in improving the organization and retrieval
of information."
|
Alex Sigel
"Knowledge Organization Schema to which metadata refer
to: Inofficial registry."
|
Dagobert Soergel
[broken link]
Comprehensive list of various KO stuff. |
|
Leonard Will, Willpower
"Software for building and editing thesauri."
|
Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization
Birger Hjorland's comprehensive dictionary of KO terms
and ideas. |
Readings
Aitchison, Jean, Alan Gilchrist
& David Bawden. 2000. Thesaurus Construction and Use: a
Practical Manual, 4th ed. Chicago; London: Fitzroy
Dearborn. (025.49 A311T4 -- 2-hour loan)
ANSI/NISO. 2005. Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and
Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies.
Z39.19-2005. American National Standards Committee, National
Information Standards Organization. Bethesda, Maryland: NISO
Press. [Available
here].
Bates, Marcia. 1998. Indexing
and Access for Digital Libraries and the Internet: Human,
Database, and Domain Factors. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science. 49 (13): 1185-1205. (E-journals at
UofT)
Brown, Pauline, Rob
Hidderley, Hugh Griffin, and Sarah Rollason. 1996. The
Democratic Indexing of Images. The New Review of Hypermedia
and Multimedia, 2: 107-120.
Feinberg, Melanie. 2006. An Examination of
Authority in Social Classification Systems. ASIST SIG/CR
Classification Research Workshop, 2006. [Available
here]
Fidel, Raya. 1994.
User-Centered Indexing. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science. 45 (8): 572-576. (E-journals at UofT)
Frohmann, Bernd. 1990. Rules
of Indexing: A Critique of Mentalism in Information Retrieval
Theory. Journal of Documentation. 46 (2): 81-101. (Xerox
File)
Hjørland, Birger. 1992. The
Concept of “Subject” in Information Science. Journal of
Documentation. 48 (2): 172-200. (Xerox File)
Hjørland, Birger. 1997.
Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An
Activity-Theoretical Approach to Information Science.
Westport, CT: Greenwood. Chapter 2: Subject Searching and
Subject Representation Data. p. 11-37. (025.47 H677I -- 2-hour
loan)
Hjørland, Birger. 2002. Domain
analysis in Information Science. Eleven Approaches - Traditional
as well as Innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58 (4):
422-462. (E-journals at UofT)
Hjørland, Birger. 2004. Domain
Analysis in Information Science. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. p.
129-135. (R 020.3 E56E2 Suppl. 1)
International Organization for
Standardization. 1985. Documentation. Methods for Examining
Documents, Determining their Subjects and Selecting Indexing
Terms. International Organization for Standardization. ISO
5963-1985. (On order/FIS) ; (Copy can be found in 025.3414 B811S
2-hour loan, after leaf 181)
International Organization for
Standardization. 1986. Documentation. Guidelines for the
Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. 2nd
ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO
2788-1986. (025.49 I616D2 -- 2-hour loan)
Mai, Jens-Erik. 2001. Semiotics
and Indexing: An Analysis of the Subject Indexing Process.
Journal of Documentation. Vol. 57(5): 591-622. (E-journals
at UofT)
Mai, Jens-Erik. 2005.
Analysis in Indexing:
Document and Domain Centered Approaches. Information
Processing and Management, 41 (3): 599-611. (E-journals at
UofT)
Nielsen, Marianne Lykke. 2001.
A Framework for Work Task Based Thesaurus Design. Journal of
Documentation, 57 (6): 774-797. (E-journals at UofT)
Rosenfeld, Louis & Peter
Morville. 2002. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web.
2nd ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. (Especially chap.
9, “Thesauri, Controlled Vocabularies, and Metadata” (p.
176-208)]. (005.72 R813I2 -- 2-hour loan)
Rowley, Jennifer. 1994.
The Controlled Versus
Natural Indexing Languages Debate Revisited: a Perspective on
Information Retrieval Practice and Research. Journal of
Information Science. 20 (2): 108-119.
Soergel, Dagobert. 1974.
Indexing Languages and Thesauri: Construction and Maintenance.
Los Angeles: Melville. (025.4 S681I -- 2-hour)
Svenonius, Elaine. 2003. Design
of Controlled Vocabularies. In Encyclopedia of Library and
Information Science. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. p.
822-838. (R 020.3 E56E2 v.2)
Svenonius, Elaine. 2000. The
Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press. (025.3 S968I -- 2-hour loan)
Swift, Donald F., Viola A.
Winn, & Dawn A. Bramer. 1979. A Sociological Approach to the
Design of Information Systems. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science,
30, 215-223. (Xerox File)
Tennis, Joseph. 2003. Two Axes
of Domains for Domain Analysis. Knowledge Organization,
30 (3/4): 191-195. (Xerox File)
Wilson,
Patrick. 1968. Two Kinds of Power. An Essay on
Bibliographical Control. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. Introduction, and chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
(010 W752 -- 2-hour loan) |