Al Youngblood

Part I: Critique of the Proposed Classification Process (BC2)

A modified version of the BC2, using selected portions of Louise Spiteri’s Ranganathan 101, was used extensively for facet construction and analysis during the assignment. This choice is partly due to BC2’s suitability within “analysis and organization of terms in technology (where [BC2 categories] were developed)” and how these categories can more readily describe “production process” information in contrast to some ambiguity within Ranganathan’s PMEST conceptualization. Broughton (p.79-80)

BC2 categories are conclusive since they “have been found to be sufficient for the analysis of vocabulary in almost all areas of knowledge.” Broughton (p.80) This formulation makes sense when considering that the domain of references within Connotea’s IMT530 folder, by definition, contained some technology or information attribute.

The Broughton and Spiteri references serve to inform Ranganathan’s Planes of Idea, Verbal, and Notational. Within this scope, we can assess the " analytico-syntheticness" of the proposed classification scheme described herein.

Use of Knowledge Modeling Tools. The University of Florida CS/HCI department has developed knowledge modeling software (known as “Cmap”) that uses a simple interface within Java to create object concepts and associative relations using one-way arrows. Cmap is a standalone tool which no relation to Lucerne/Lucy or other Library search IR systems. Cmap creates concept bubbles that can easily be manipulated, just as if they had been written on a Post-It Note and arranged. There is no precondition that model concepts stay hierarchical, form a tree, or carry a pre-determined order. Logic resolvers can make statements based upon model structure and relations if needed. An actual screen shot of Cmap appears in Part XI.
Rather than begin with a spreadsheet program like Excel, which arguably favors hierarchical arrangements of information, Cmap software helped reveal spatial associations among isolates as foci. Non-relational mapping software might address some “visualization” difficulties inherent within facetation and is preferable because “faceted classification has no overall structure […] has no ‘theoretical glue’ […and is] ad hoc” Kwasnick (1999:41-2). Cmap associations were then manually moved on to a spreadsheet for further order and scheduling.

Analytico-Sythetic Nature of Scheme.   Using the Cmap software, keywords were taken as isolates and analyzed in place; grouped into similar concepts; collapsed into one word or phrases to describe the cluster; compared with a larger category within the BC2 categories; and fitted into a specific array sequence by order. This is Hunter’s “simple” process. (p.24)

Our citation order is:

[ thing|kind|part|property|material|process|operation|product|agent|space|time ].

Notations chosen were tested within EndNote and revealed a notional filing order of   ! # $ % & ( ) * @ [ ] as automatically sorted. Facet notes were made at the time facets and subfacets were decided. All array ordering is from general to specific, greater to smaller, or complex to simpler.

The goals of an analytic-sythetic formulation are for hierarchy, systematic order, mutual exclusivity, and joint exhaustivity in a design that is both hospitable and expressive. Some of Ranganathan’s Canons informed the design—i.e., Characteristic Canons: Differentialtion (clear division into component parts), Relevance (purposes/scope of class scheme), Ascertainability (definite character); Array Canons: Consistent Sequence (citation order untouched), Helpful Sequence (consistent interarray ordering); and Filiatory Sequence (notation order related to filing order).

Nevertheless, several overarching problems make this a poor analytico-synthetic attempt—i.e., Canons of Coordinate Classes and Exclusiveness are not consistent (e.g., “By Level of Quality of Practice” which is between Property-Structure and Process-By Performance).

Part II: Commentary on Character and Fitness of Classification Scheme

            Bates uses six specification guidelines to advise the construction a systematic bibliography by carefully defining her terms in light of Patrick Wilson’s notions of bibliographic control. Bates also describes a set of carefully drawn selection methods. She concludes by suggesting a specification model for creating a systematic bibliography.
Bibliographic Units. Bates describes “bibliographic units” as a level of unit wherein the bibliographer makes assumptions as to what constitutes a complete item for comparison with other items within a bibliographic arrangement. Patrick Wilson’s concern within this specification rests in “listing and description” of an item, i.e., whether the item would be recognized or simply discarded from the collection. Furthermore, “[s]pecifications” and “basis, or principle, for selecting one level or the other should be stated” for “regularizing and rationalizing […] the compilation process.” (p.14-15)

An example of a specification meeting most of this requirement might be:

“69 documents found on the Internet and related to ‘information’ were produced by the Spring IMT 530A class and were added to an IMT530 class folder in Connotea, of which 21 items were selected using the author’s discretion but had a topical relation to Metadata, a subject he finds interesting. He edited the document items based upon his own literary and structural warrant and by direct examination of the particular document. None of the 21 documents of 132 keywords were deleted …”

Briefly stated, the bibliographic units for this assignment were the actual documents themselves.

Information Fields. Bates complains of “inconsistencies of description [that] creep in” (p.15) when using an unrecognized bibliographic format, such as one created individually for “fun.”   In construction of our own bibliography, we relied upon the LIS-IMT Annotated Style that instructs: “This is a generic style that includes an alphabetically-sorted bibliography and abstracts.” Bibliographic sort order is by “Call Number” while citation sort order is by “Year + Author”. This bibliographic notice presents a problem when no Author or Year appears. As such, modifications to the document were done to correct this problem.

Endnote provides “full, detailed models of the information fields” (p.15) although lacked some explanation as to the meaning of particular fields within a Reference Type. For example, no set of standards is given as to the difference between a “Web Page” containing graphics (such as the Educause Learning Initiative’s chart on Seven Things You Should Know About Social Bookmarking and a “Chart or Table” reference.

            Information field mismatching was a constant problem throughout the early stages of this assignment. When changing document type, modified information appeared in red and sometimes was misplaced in a location that is not appropriate. The Educause Learning chart , for example, was cast as an “Electronic Article” due problems as a “chart.” Endnote’s Style Manager attempts to standardize citation materials within specific types of genres (e.g., Turabian Bibilography, APA) or a particular journal (e.g., Journal of Grass and Forage Science), but this feature was not used.

Organization. Bates describes three types of organization modes: Access points (that give a researcher a place to “gain access to the file”), ordering principle (that arranges listings in place such as in an alphabetical arrangement), and entry terms (that allow the user to easily acertain “coverage of the bibliography”). (p.16) Citation order is an inherent “access point” giving the user a quick way to move about the bibliography. While the connecting digits are not intuitive, reading the note at the beginning of the facet scheme is instructive. The ordering principle used followed Ranganathan’s Canons of Helpful and Consistent sequence, which follow from general to specific. Alphabetical ordering was eliminated from the assignment. As such, a user would have no way of determining from facets whether there is sufficient coverage.
            Every attempt was made to make hospitable the facet structure laid in place. Bolded words were added to balance some of the conceptual irregularities within the scheme, which might have introduced some irregularity.   For example, under Property – By Structure – Types of Metadata Standard, the concept of “operable” metadata was used as a contrast to “inoperable” metadata. Such a term is not controlled and might not have the same meaning for all compilers.

Domain and Scope. Bates (p.19) produces a new specification, based upon a close reading of Wilson, related to “domain” of “bibliographic territory searched” and scope of “conceptual territory covered.”   Scope, in particular, is independent of domain and should be found since it involves “implicit criteria” elements that regulate inclusion or exclusion of an item. (p.18)
            These 21 documents do not cover the entire domain of the the 69 IMT530 Connotea library, but the scope of most all the documents was within the context of some type of “information resource” or “process.” Originally, “information management” was selected as the highest order “thing” within the scheme, but it became apparent that more technical aspects of general information were relevant to the scope.

Principles of Selection. Bates constructs a set of “selection principles” (p.20-24) that describes “rules by which items are selected for the final bibliography out of the items meeting the scope” and narrows Wilson’s own formulation that entails selection from the domain. Bates can inform how decisions were made to classify particular documents within our facet scheme.

1. Expert Judgment and “Most or Best”.   Bates (p.20) uses this selection principle to describe a particular type of selection made with a goal in mind that ought to be stated explicitly in order to anticipate a type of expected selection choice. All documents were reviewed in place at the time that the bibliographic classification was created. Literary and structural warrant informed what particular facet or subfacets would apply. The subject on its face, classmate commentary, and a cursory reading of the abstract were preferred, followed by a quick glace at the entire document’s structure in relation to the most likely “intention” of the author. For example, documents with a table of content in a beginning section always made reference to other sections and was usually a narrative explaining a particular subject. Some expert judgment was used when differentiating data structures and types for more technical facets.

2. Random Sample.   This concept simply refers to randomization in a statistical sense which is “quite difficult to do” within a bibliographic area because we generally lack total knowledge of every item meeting the scope of inquiry. (Bates, p.21) Random sampling is meant to eliminate a human bias but is not practicable. There was no random sampling in this assignment, and there was no possible way of knowing the entire scope of inquiry.

3. Representative Sample.     This concept refers to a compilation where the compiler is “self-consciously aware of selection decisions being made” that arise from the exercise of “good judgment” within their “understanding of the concept of representativeness.” (p.22-23)   A deliberate choice was made to include items which were found to be of interest—namely, topics with some relation to metadata and other types of organizational schema. This policy skeued the collection towards themes which involved “descriptions of” or “introduction to” these topics. Nevertheless, there was enough diversity within the isolates to form a classification scheme that was functional and could be applied to other documents outside the immediate collection.

4. Functional Equivalence Sets.     A functional equivalence set, according to Bates (p.23), arises out of a cognitive grouping of a set of items such that the bibliographic user would “find any one item in the set as good for higher purposes as, or functionally equivalent to, any other item in the set.”   For compilation purposes, such a distillation is used for inclusion in a final bibliography. Hierarchical equivalence refers to a “one-to-many” relationship (e.g., a textbook is equivalent to several review papers and original papers), while a substitution equivalent refers to a “one-to-one” relationship (e.g., several research papers are equivalent to each other).
            Finally, it is interesting to note thatCmap knowledge mapping software enabled this type of functional equivalency to emerge from the isolates during facet selection. Several key ideas that sprang from the clustering of concepts included: Metadata, Ways of Organizing Information, Business Applications, Dublin Core, and Studies within Information Management. Hierarchical equivalence was avoided as facets are not typically hierarchical from one perspective. This was the disadvantage of one-way arrows with Cmap. Substitution was used exclusively as a “workaround” during this phase. In the future, come of the “visualization” problems with facet selection (Broughton, p.79-80) are expected to be resolved within later versions of Cmap.

Part III: Keywords

Accessibility
Accessible Rich Internet Applications
Administrative Metadata
Automated Context Recognition
Blog
Bookmarks
Business
Case Study
Cataloguing
Categories
Class
Classification
Classification
Clustering
Concept Mapping
Connotea
Context Category Classification
Controlled Terminology
Controlled Vocabularies
Corporate Data Classification
Corporate Metadata Best Practices
Corporate Security of Data
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Data
Data Mining of Information
Descriptive Metadata
Digital
Document Management
Dublin Core
Dublin Core Elements
Dublin Core Metadata schema
Dublin Core Qualifiers Proposal
Dublin Core Standard
Educause
Element
Email Overload
Encoding Syntaxes
Faceted Classification
File Classification Tagging
File Path Metadata Parsing
File Tagging
Folksonomy
Folksonomy
Indexing
In-file Content Visibility
Information
Information
Information Classification and Management
Information Management
Information Organization
Information Overload
Information Society
Information Structure
Intellectual Capital
Interactive Design
Interoperable Metadata Standards
Intranet
IT Service Providers
Key Concept
Keyword search
Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management
Logical Units
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata
Metadata and Ontology Management
Metadata Schema
Metadata standards
Networking Information
Nodes
Non-digital
Ontologies
Ontology
Organizing Information
OWL
Personal Bookmarking
Personalized Information Organization
Policy Based Management and Tracking
Policy Engines
Preliminary Concept
Querying
ranking techniques
RDF
RDF
RDF Schema
Reference
Reference Management
Relational Databases and Metadata
Resources
RSS
Schema
Schema
Search
Search Engine
Semantic Web
Semantic Web
Semantics
SGML
Site Design
SJSU
Social Bookmarking
Social Bookmarking
Social Bookmarking
Social Tagging
Standardization
Structural Metadata
Structures of Information
Syntax
Tagging
Tagging
Tagging Classified Data
Tagging for Businesses IT professionals
Tags
Taxonomy
Thesauri
Tim O'Reilly
Tools
Topic Maps
UKOLN
Units of Information
University of Bath
URL
Visual Language
Voicemail Overload
Warwick Framework
Web 2.0
Web 2.0
Web design
Web Style Guide
Wiki

Part IV: Faceted Classification Scheme
Citation/Notation Order:

Thing ! Kind # Part $ Property % Material & Process ( Operation ) Product * Agent @ Space [ Time ]

Notes: Bold means that the items were added. Green is the thing. Red is highest level comcept. Blue is a Facet. Subfacets are not colored.

INFORMATION
            (Kinds of Information) – From Greater Absstraction to Embodiment
                        (By Existence) – This is organized by division
- Exists
- Doesn’t exist
(By Encoding) – This is organized by division
- Digital
- Non-Digital
            (Parts of Information) – From Greater Abstraction to More Finiteness

                        (By Level of Development) – From More to less developed
- Final Concept
- Intermediate Concept
- Preliminary Concept
(Types of Structure) - From greater Complexity to Lesser complexity
- Information Groups
- Information Objects
(Types of Components) – From Greater Combinaton to Less Combination
- Structures of Information
- Relations of Information
- Processes of Information
- Units of Information
(By Situatedness) – From More Connected to Less connected
- Nodes
- Key Concept
(By Position) – From General to more specific
- Class
- Category
- Element
            (Property of Information)    - By Greater Broadness to less

                        (By Accessibility) – By decreasing distance from the human body
            (By Construction) – from greater set to a smaller element
(By Sense)
(By Field Subject) – From abstractness to more concrete
- Metaphysical
- Intellectual
- Linguistic
- Design
(Types of Design) – From overall idea to element
(By Action)
- Organization
(By Scope) – By Division
- Management
(By Structure) - Also organized by decreasing complexity
- Noise
- Data
- Metadata
(Types of Metadata)
(Types of Metadata Standards)
(By Type of DC Resource Regulated)
(By What Phase of the Regulation)
(By Type of Metadata Practitioner)
(By Level of Quality of Practice)
(By Type of Metadata Schema)
- Database
(By Maintainer) - From oldest to most recent
- ISO
- W3
- Dublin Core
- Microformats
(Materials of Information) – From Great Amount of Material to Lesser

(Types of Manipulators) – by commonality of aggregation to elementalness
- Unintended (Unanticipated)
- Tools
- Descriptors
(By Type of Modeling Language) – From oldest to newest
- SGML
- HTML
- VMRL
(Types of Identifiers) – By composition
- Locators
- Markings
(Type of Interactive Component) – Decreasing level of interaction
- Wiki
- Blog
- RSS
(Type of Reference Material) – From greater instructiveness to less
- Guide
- Case Study
- Article
- Reference
(Processes of Information) – From More Processes to Less

(By Ordering) – Progressively uses less “rules”
- Ontology
- Classification
(By Scheme) – Progressively get less complicated
(By Relation to Subject)
(By Location of Information) – Broader to narrower
(By Type of Data Involved) – Bigger structure to small element
- Folksonomy
- Cataloging
- Indexing
- Topic Maps
- Concept Mapping
- Clustering
- Standardization
(By Organizing) – From Great types of interaction sysmbold to less
- Networking
- Bookmarking
(By Type)
- Tagging
(By Type)
(By Performance) – From Aggregation of Utility to Instance
- Methods
- Technique
- Habit
(By Disfunction) – Greater to smaller
- Overload
- Underload
(Operations of Information) – From More Gneral to Specific

(By Outcome) – By Older age to younger
- Destruction
- Protection (Assurance) – from broader scope to least
- Creation
(Types of Manipulations) From greater data change complexity to less
- Recognition
- Mining
- Searching
(Types of Handlers) – wide to narrow
- Parsing
(Types of Parsing) – From Large to small
- Ranking
- Querying
- Tracking
- Encoding
(Products of Information) – From More Formalized to Less Formalized
(Types of Systems Made) - From more rigid to less rigid (colloquial)
- Taxonomy
- Thesauri
- Vocabulary
(By Orderedness) – More rigid to less
- Terminology
(By Orderedness)
(By Anticipated Result) – From organizaed nature to less structured
- Initiative
- Strategy
- Goal
- Basis
- Idea
(Agents of Information) – From More Distrance/Broad to Function/Individual

(By Sector) - From Greater Affinity to Moneymaking to Less
- Business
- Academic
(By Role)
- Individual
- Government
- Not-for-Profit
(By Process) – From more actors to less
- Exchange
(Types of Exchange)
- Service
- Description
(Space of Information) - From braod to Narrow

(By Conceptualization) – from greater outward to the individual
- Universe of Information
- Information Society
- Information Person
(By Electronic State) - From Outward to Person
- Internet
- Intranet
- Off-Network
- In-File
- In Person
(By Type of Purpose)
- Research
(By Level of Information Sharing) – From more sharing to less
- Website
- Institution
- Individual (Personal)
(By Research Facility) – By information school recognition – greater to less
- Syracuse University
- UW iSchool
- University of Texas
- UKOLN
- University of Bath
(By Research Program)
(Time of Information) – By Age

(By Web Version) – Greater to Smaller
- Web3.0
- Web2.0
(By Levels of Complexity)- from Greater to Smaller
- Web1.0

Part V: Systematic Bibliography Based on “21 Resources from IMT530 Collection”

Compiler:                              Al Youngblood
Place of Publication:            Seattle, WA
Publisher:                              UW iSchool
Date of Publication:              March 2008

1!21#13$22%53&31(22)25*12@31[12]
Wilson, B. (2005) Personalized Information Organization. 10.1045/april2005-editorial: 10.1045/april2005-editorial
This is an article discussing how personalized information organization and tools aiding personalized information organization are developing with the increasing amount of available information through digital materials on the Internet.

1!21#22$267%53&15(25)11*12@31[12]
Kim, Y., H. Shin, et al. (2007). "Indexing Scheme for Keyword Search over Semantic Web Documents." The 9th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology 2: 1205-1209.
In this paper, an indexing scheme targeting at efficient process of keyword-search for RDF/S documents is presented. Queries with keyword conditions are classified into three patterns, and then an indexing structure using inverted lists and numbering schemes is proposed. Afterwards, a ranking scheme involving both vertical ranking method and horizontal ranking method are utilized as ranking strategies for keyword-search. The schemes can be used to determine a specific sequence of query results according to predefined importance of resources.

1!21#31$33%54&12()*12@31[]
Taylor, C. (2003, 07-29-2003). "An Introduction to Metadata." Retrieved 01-03-08, 2008, from http://www.library.uq.edu.au/iad/ctmeta4.html.
This website gives a brief introduction on metadata, why it is used, different metadata schemas, and provides an example of metadata using the Dublin Core metadata schema.

1!21#31$262%52&31(21)25*22@12[12]
Tredinnick, L. (2006). "Web 2.0 and Business: A Pointer to the Intranets of the Future?" Business Information Review 23(4): 228-234.
Explores the application of Web 2.0 technologies to business intranets, and their potential use in managing and developing business information and knowledge assets. Considers how Web 2.0 approaches on the public web are subtly reshaping the relationship between users and information. Argues that Web 2.0 is not a technological innovation, but is changing the understanding of the status of information, knowledge and the role of the user in information applications. Suggests that, as information proliferates, control is being gradually ceded to users, opening up the possibility of a new, more democratic, and more evaluative phase in the exploitation of information within organizations.

1!21#31$267%53&31()*21[12]
Fanning, B. (2006). "Data, Data, Everywhere Data: Metadata Standards." AIIM E- Doc Magazine 20(3): 76-77.
Metadata is the key that unlocks access to the content that an organization needs to accomplish its business goals. Simply put, metadata means data about data. With the explosion of information on the Internet and the increasing amounts of information that organizations are developing and maintaining, metadata is the key to accessing the information people need when they need it. One of the most commonly known metadata schemas is Dublin Core Metadata developed by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, an open forum engaged in the development of online metadata standards that support a number of purposes and business models. They are dedicated to promoting the widespread adoption of interoperable metadata standards and developing specialized metadata vocabularies for describing resources that enable more intelligent information discovery systems. While there are numerous activities underway in the area of metadata, there is much more standardization work that is needed in this area.

1!21#31$332%51&16()11*12@32[11]
Garshol, L. (2006) Metadata?: Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! ,
This website gives an overview on metadata, subject-based classification including taxonomy and thesauri, and topic maps.

1!21#32$22%32&1221()*13@21[12]
Initiative, E. L. (2005). "7 things you should know about...Social Bookmarking." 67.23kb: 2.
This article describes 7 things about social bookmarking. It also gives a scenario of how social bookmarking is helpful.

1!21#32$33%53&32(21)23*23@21[12]
Cooper, M. (2007) Accessibility of emerging rich web technologies: web 2.0 and the semantic web. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 225, 93-98
Web 2.0 is a new approach to Web content, making it more interactive and allowing sites to combine features in new ways. This change in paradigm brings new challenges to people with disabilities. Accessibility advocates must develop solutions rapidly. Semantic Web technologies address some of these requirements, and accessibility innovation may be part of A convergence of the Web 2.0 and Semantic Web.

1!21#32$261%32&13()13*23@12[]
Durao, F., T. Vanderlei, et al. (2007). "A Cooperative Classification Mechanism for Search and Retrieval Software Components." ACM(Information Access and Retrieval): 866-871.
The use of folksonomy concepts in a software component search engine as an alternative to improve the search result quality, covering from specification to implementation.

1!21#32$268%52&22()*22@12[12]
Lund, B., T. Hammond, et al. (2005). "Social Bookmarking Tools (II): A Case Study - Connotea." D-Lib Magazine 11(4).

1!21#32$268%52&23()*13@12[12]
Hammond, T., T. Hannay, et al. (2005). "Social Bookmarking Tools (I): A General Review." D-Lib Magazine 11(4).
This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex.

1!21#33$251%12&17()11*21@32[]
Pad, M. (2004). "Concept mapping: An Effective Way to Organize Information."
Concept mapping is an easy way to gather and organization information. It helps represent the available information visually in a clear manner.

1!21#33$262%12&132()25*11@12[]
Pottas, S. S. and D. Govender (2007). "A Model to Assess the Benefit Value of Knowledge Management in an IT Service Provider Environment." ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 226: 36-45.
The key focus of this paper is to establish a knowledge management value model and relating this to the IT service provider industry.

1!21#33$264%53&11()11*11@31[12]
Balani, N. (2005) The Future of the Web is Semantic. IBM Developer Works,
This article talks about the semantic web's technologies and why organizations should adopt those technologies. Topics such as relationships between data items, components of OWL web Ontology language, OWL and RDF coding examples, and benefits of the semantic web are covered in this article.

1!21#42$12%53&41()25*23@12[]
Krill, P. (2000). "Overcoming Information Overload." InfoWorld.
This article describes the various day-to-day activities where we face an information overload and gives solutions for such situations.

1!21#331$241%51&31()23*111@21[]
Lynch, P. and S. Horton (2002). Site Design: Organizing Information, Yale University Press: 176.
Brief article discussing how to organize information on your web site by following five steps.

1!21#331$266%12&31()23*11@25[]
Reed, B. (2007). "Data Classification Best Practices." Network World 24(3): 1.
Corporate efforts to secure data, comply with regulations, tier storage and meet new legal-discovery demands depend on having a good data classification method in place. Traditional classification methods that rely on file-system metadata lack comprehensive content visibility because the Common Interface File System for Windows and the Network File Systems for Unix offer no more than eight metadata summaries for classification. That has spurred the emergence of a market segment called Information Classification and Management. In larger enterprises, files must be found and classified in a variety of locations, something solutions built on relational databases have difficulty accomplishing.

1!21#331$322%53&1231()*14@3112[12]
Cathro, W. (1997) Metadata: An Overview. Staff Papers: National Library of Australia,
This article gives an overview of matadata. The author talks about the purpose of matadata, the Warwick Framework, the Dublin Core standard, the Dublin Core elements, the Minimalist/Structuralist issues, and the Dublin Core Qualifiers Proposal.

1!21#332$33%53&18(26)22*23@31[]
Hearst, M. (2006). "Clustering Versus Faceted Categories for Information Exploration." Communications of the ACM 49(4): 59-61.
Covers clustering and categories and how these two ideas can improve or hinder search results.

1!21#341$2421%51&31(28)24*23@25[]
Jacobson, R. (1999). Information Design. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Information design is not only important-it is essential!This book is about the latest information design technology. It also provides the vision of how information design can be practiced diligently, for the benefit of information consumers as well as producers.

1!21#$267%54&()21*12@44[]
Day, M. (2007). "What is Metadata?" UKOLN.
States a definition of metadata from a research organization focused on information technology.

Part VI: References

Bates, Marcia J. (1976) "Rigorous Systematic Bibliography." RQ 16 (Fall): 7-26.

Broughton, Vanda (2001) “Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment: the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures.” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 7:1, 67 – 102.

Cmap Modeling Software. Retrieved March 12, 2008 from http://cmap.ihmc.us

Kwasnick, Barbara H. (1999) “The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery.” Library Trends 48 (1): 22-47.

Spiteri, Louise. (1998) "A simplified model for facet analysis: Ranganathan 101." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 23(1/2) April-July 1998, 1 - 30. Retrived via electronic form on March 7, 2008 from http://iainstitute.org/pg/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php

Virtual Representation of Me!

Contact Me

My email address is if you want to contact me. I am usually available via email on a regular basis.

Part I: Critique of the Proposed Classification Process (BC2)

Part II: Commentary on Character and Fitness of Classification Scheme

Part III: Keywords

Part IV: Faceted Classification Scheme

Part V: Systematic Bibliography Based on “21 Resources from IMT530 Collection”

Part VI: References

Virtual Representation of Me!

Contact Me