9 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2024
    1. Dousa, Thomas M. “Facts and Frameworks in Paul Otlet’s and Julius Otto Kaiser’s Theories of Knowledge Organization.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 36, no. 2 (2010): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2010.1720360208.

    2. For Kaiser, then, alphabetical order represented the interpretatively safest andmost user-friendly way of organizing information units by their subject terms.
    3. on the guide card for each main entry term a list of the other main entry termswith which it stood in semantic relation: the latter included synonyms, broaderterms, narrower terms and related terms [8, § 415, 423]. The “logical key”served as the syndetic structure of the index, indicating a web of conceptualrelations otherwise unexpressed by the alphabetical structure of the index file.

      Some of the structure in Kaiser's system was built into relationships on guide cards. While not exactly hub notes, they did provide links to other areas of the system in addition to synonyms under which materials could be found including broader terms, narrower terms, and related terms often seen in library information systems.

    4. Given that Kaiser acknowledged the utility of indicating semantic relationsbetween index terms, why did he prefer alphabetical to classified order forfiling? The answer lies in his view of language. Kaiser considered words innatural language to be imprecise expressions of the concepts that they areintended to convey. In addition, he held that there is little agreement amongusers of a language as to the precise definition of individual terms [8, §60–61, 112]. Such semantic indeterminism, in his opinion, makes it difficultto determine precisely what the authors of documents mean by the wordsthey are using, and any attempt by an indexer to substitute preferred termsfor the author’s own words runs the risk of misinterpreting the meaning ofthe words in the original document. It was for this reason that he preferredusing index terms extracted from the document itself [8, § 114].

      Kaiser touches on the issue of "coming to terms" in his card (indexing) system. He preferred using the author's terminology over the indexer's. Some of the fungibility of words and their definitions was met by the use of a "logical key" to the index which was put onto guide cards for each main entry term.

    5. Whereas Otlet and Kaiser were in substantial agreement on both thedesirability of information analysis and its technological implementation inthe form of the card system, they parted company on the question of howindex files were to be organized. Both men favored organizing informationunits by subject, but differed as to the type of KO framework that shouldgovern file sequence: Otlet favored filing according to the classificatory orderof the UDC, whereas Kaiser favored filing according to the alphabeticalorder of the terms used to denote subjects

      Compare the various organizational structures of Otlet, Kaiser, and Luhmann.


      Seemingly their structures were dictated by the number of users and to some extent the memory of those users with respect to where to find various things.

      Otlet as a multi-user system with no single control mechanism or person, other than the decimal organizing standard (in his case a preference for UDC), was easily flexible for larger groups. Kaiser's system was generally designed, built and managed by one person but intended for use by potentially larger numbers of people. He also advised a conservative number of indexing levels geared toward particular use-cases (that is a limited number of heading types or columns/rows from a database perspective.) Finally, Luhmann's was designed and built for use by a single person who would have a more intimate memory of a more idiosyncratic system.

  2. Apr 2024
  3. Mar 2024
    1. Devising Once a proper system has been devised, it requiresCard Systems

      Devising Card Systems

      Many modern-day note takers and knowledge workers might take solace in the broad advice provided by J. Kaiser in 1908. In describing some of the broad categories of uses of card index filing systems for business use he says that each entity "has its individual character and individual requirements, and its individual character" (ie, everyone is different and has different needs), therefore everyone "must devise [their] system in accordance with [their] own requirements" and should "be the best judge as to what these requirements are." He continues on in the rest of the book to outline a variety of suggestions and methods which one might use or adopt, but he doesn't dictate specific methods and leaves those decisions up to the end user.

      When devising their own systems, one certainly ought to heed this advice when looking at a variety of alternative methods like Forte's P.A.R.A., Milo's LYT, or even in mimicking Luhmann's idiosyncratic Zettelkasten set up. Are these methods best for your particular use cases? Are they simple enough for what you want to do, or are they overly structured and complicated? The key is to be able to classify and file things quickly so that they can be easily accessed in the future, all the rest becomes additional details and overhead to support on an ongoing basis.

      (¶76)