Epistemic warrant for categorizational activities and the development of controlled vocabularies

Martínez-Ávila, Daniel; Budd, John M.

doi:10.1108/jd-10-2016-0129

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Use warrant focuses on the vocabulary of those who will use the system as a source of justification for terminology (Svenonius, 2000). It is this kind of warrant that Martínez-Ávila and Budd (2017) equate most closely with Cutter’s (1876) conception of common usage, a conception that continues to be asserted as important in contemporary practice (Tillett and Cristán, 2009). It is curious then that use warrant serves a relatively diminished role in the current bibliographic code RDA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In their review of warrant types, Martínez-Ávila and Budd (2017) argued that literary warrant maintains a prominent place in classification. Findings from this present study show that literary warrant has a similarly central role in another kind of knowledge organization practice, bibliographic description.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of other types of warrant have also been conceptualized and explored throughout the literature. The most comprehensive review of various warrants in knowledge organization was conducted by Martínez-Ávila and Budd (2017); beyond introducing the concept of epistemic warrant, the authors reviewed 16 other types of warrant found in the literature, including ethical warrant, structural warrant and market warrant. Also of note here is this study’s distinction between user warrant and use warrant, while these concepts have been used interchangeably at times, their framework presents the former as reflecting active user involvement in the development of a knowledge organization system, with the later referring to an empirical consideration of the language used by presumed users (Martínez-Ávila and Budd, 2017).…”

Section: Background and Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, one of the most prominent types of warrant has been literary warrant: basing terminological forms on those common in published literature (Hulme, 1950). Many other types of warrant have been noted, however, including cultural warrant, scientific warrant and use warrant (Martínez-Ávila and Budd, 2017), each playing various roles of more or less importance in certain systems. Overall, warrant has served as a means of understanding the relationship between knowledge organizing and sources of conceptual and terminological authority; that is, what sources are appealed to for justification, and in the process, what perspectives on labeling receive privilege.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description

Dobreski

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description

Dobreski

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some further considerations for a library classification system following this model are: the rejection of universality as an assumption, accepting that a single system with the same code cannot be valid for everybody in the same way; the adoption of a more pragmatist view for system development, having a clear vision of which communities will use the system and the ways in which it could be useful for them; and, finally, the establishment of appropriate ways to develop based on the research and specific theoretical background of the domains of those communities. In the end, if a system is developed by the users, it must serve those users and allow them the freedom to decide the context for its use instead of adopting or allowing a third-party developer to base the system development on market warrant (Martínez-Ávila, 2016;Budd, 2017;Barité, 2018) or the developer's own interests. In this vein, the open source methodology of the OSC could be approached as an example of social epistemology in Knowledge Organization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of crowdsourcing and the Bazaar model to the development of library classifications: an assessment of the Open Shelves Classification

Martínez-Ávila

Manuel

2020

Transinformação

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a discussion of crowdsourcing approaches to knowledge organization and more specifically to the development of classification schemes. It analyzes the case of Open Shelves Classification, a terminated project that was developed by the LibraryThing community following the “open source model”, and assesses its outcomes from methodological and sociological points of view. Working with all the documentation of the project that is freely available, the text conducts an analysis of the project following the structure of the methodological lessons for open source (Bazaar model) presented by Eric Raymond in his seminal work “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” and complementing it with the discussion of the sociological aspects presented in “Homesteading the Noosphere” and other writings. The paper concludes with some recommendations for the success of open source projects and some possibilities of research for crowdsourcing projects and social epistemology.

show abstract

Toward Evidence‐Based Cataloging Ethics: Research, Practice and Training in Knowledge Organization

McAdie,

Lee,

Snow

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This panel considers the bridge between research and practice in cataloging ethics. Cataloging ethics – including indexing and classification – is an important part of practice, yet cataloging ethics research and practice are not always clearly connected. The purpose of this panel is to build towards more evidence‐based cataloging ethics practice. Two main areas will be considered. The Cataloging Code of Ethics (2021) is a vital part of these discussions: this major codification of cataloging ethics was the result of both practitioner input and much research. This panel will discuss ways in which the Code can lead to more research‐informed practices. Teaching and training is a crucial – and under‐discussed – aspect of cataloging ethics, both within library and information science education and workplace training. Therefore, the panel will contemplate how training and teaching can germinate research‐based practices. The panel will be in three parts: a panel presentation about cataloging ethics, including each member's perspectives and experiences on teaching and training in cataloging ethics; small group discussions about real world cataloging ethics scenarios, utilizing the Code to generate discussion; and feedback to the whole group with a closing discussion about strengthening the relationship between practice and research in cataloging ethics.

show abstract

Epistemic warrant for categorizational activities and the development of controlled vocabularies

Cited by 7 publications

References 39 publications

Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description

Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description

The application of crowdsourcing and the Bazaar model to the development of library classifications: an assessment of the Open Shelves Classification

Toward Evidence‐Based Cataloging Ethics: Research, Practice and Training in Knowledge Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About