index_of_subjects

(see also name index)
 * Subject index**

Tagunity: community, online, knowledge sharing DRAFT 1159399055 [key: abbreviations: R = Robertson (2006) from RMIT] d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z todo  about_tagunity acronyms to add: dkm enop lcms nop Ph.D (see Postgraduate Essentials) case study; wilnf (check) UMLS
 * **A** |

activity theory

actor-network theory

aggregator

alignment of ontologies annotation, a feature in so called 'social_software'

Ambient findability, see Peter Morville

artefacts/artifacts,

Australia > Learning Federation (case study for further research) > Postgraduate Essentials (University of Melbourne)  belief, socially-supported and context-building, see: Matsumoto, &amp; Tokosumi's (2005) //Context building through socially-supported belief//. Bloglines > described ???
 * **B** |

blogs (i.e. weblogs)

beer ontology boundary_objects

bounded rationality BP //Learning to Fly// case study business, see > blogs in business //todo: add as anchor// > Web 2.0 > social media inside the firewall (smif)

> wikis  canological_practices compared to non-canological practices, see Østerlund, &amp; Carlile (2005) case_studies > ActKM > Alcoholics Anonymous (see Wenger, 1998, p. 295) > Alinsu > Bibster > blacksmiths > BP //Learning to Fly// > CompanyCommand (US Army) > flute makers > Four Umpires, story of (e.g. Engeström, 2000) > jazz musicians > (KA)2 Semantic Web case study > //Learning to Fly// knowledge sharing at BP > Navy and CoPs > > e.g. NAVSEA Community of Practice Practitioner's Guide > > e.g. Kendall, R. E., &amp; McHale, K. J. (2003). > ontoshare_case_study > Ph.D students – see: ardichvili_page_wentling_2003 on //Motivation and barriers to participation// > police Carden, and Harris, (2003) on //probationary constables and their journey through a community of practice//. > Postgraduate Essentials (University of Melbourne) > pronett_case_study for teachers in the European Union (EU) > Postgraduate Essentials, for Ph.D students at the University of Melbourne) > Royal National Lifeboat Institution (Kolbotn, 2004) > Semantic Blogger (HP research Labs, UK) > Tapped In > Tomoye CMS e.g. CompanyCommand case study > US Navy,
 * **C** |

> SIOC (Semantically-Interlinked Online Community) ontology case study > Waikato, University of; CoPs case study > WiInf-Central > wine tasters (Wenger 1998, p. 70) > xerox_case_study photocopy technicians (ethnography by Julian Orr) category_boundaries, see Østerlund, &amp; Carlile, (2005) chunk CIA, wikis in the US, article by Joab_Jackson, GCN.com class, see Semantic Web fundamentals class hierarchy Semantic Web fundamentals classification scheme, see also controlled vocabularies collaboration > see case_studies, esp. CompanyCommand, and postgrad_essentials > see knowledge_social_construction

communal resource and information systems > e.g. see Pan, S. C., &amp; Leidner, D. (2003). Bridging communities of practice with information technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12, 71-88. > and see also Leidner related resources > > Powell, A., Piccoli, G., &amp; Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. Data base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6-31. > > Schultze, U., &amp; Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS quarterly, 26(3), 213-242. > > Storck, J., &amp; Hill, P. (2000). Knowledge diffusion through strategic communities. Sloan Management Review, 2, 63–74. > > Von Krogh, G. (2002). The communal resource and information systems. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 85-107. community_driven_metadata_management community driven ontology management, see ontology_engineering community Web portals, see ontology_engineering

conclusion e.g. three problems with mutually compatible solutions

Communities of Practice (CoPs) community-driven ontology management e.g. Zhdanova, A. V., Krummenacher, R., Henke, J., &amp; Fensel, D. (2005, September 19-22). Community-Driven Ontology Management: DERI Case Study. Paper presented at the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, Compiegne, France. community informatics (CI) e.g. Michael Gurstein community > defined, in defining community, Raymond Williams (1976) one term is social discourse that is consistently used with positive connotations (Wenger, 1998, n., 4 p. 288) communities, community, and related concepts > see "social, collaborative construction of … knowledge" (Robertson) collective interpretation e.g. Dixon, 1999, p 232 (glossary) defines as interaction among organisational members in order to reduced equivocality in information, i.e. information that contains ambiguities or that is of dubious reliability or usefulness. > imagined communities (see Wenger, 1998, 294) > community oriented technologiescommunity oriented technologies (see Wenger, 2001) > types of community (see Wenger, 1998, 181-3) > communities of knowing (e.g. Boland &amp; Tenkasi's influential work on //Perspective making and perspective taking// (1995) > communities of networked expertise (see Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, Lehtinen, 2004) and see CoP related concepts > community of information gathers (Robertson, 2006, p 8) > distributed knowledge management (Cuel, Bouquet, &amp; Bonifacio, 2006). > electronic networks of practice > knowledge management network or see Figallo_and_Rhine (RMIT) > knowledge nodes or see also Roberta Cuel > networks of practice e.g. Vaast (2005) in Khosro-Pour > R 127-128 > sense of community e.g. Roberts, Smith and Pollock (2006) compound terms, see polyhierarchy concepts, e.g. > formal classifications > informal classifications > community > community approaches to formal classification > notions of community in informal classification > formal/informal classification hybrids constructivism, > is seen as the as inspiration behind constructivism Polanyi's epistemology (as argued by Sveiby, 1996, who cites Johannesson, 1992).

Constructivist approach, e.g. Spender, J.-C. (1996). //Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm//. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62. constructivist learning environments > e.g. Jonassen, D. H., &amp; Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). //Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments//. Educational technology research and development, 47(1), 61-79. constructivist perspective constructivist philosophy, see social constructivist perspective

> as a philosophical stance in the development of ‘enterprise ontologies’(Dietz, J 2006, RMIT) > e.g. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments (Jonassen &amp; Rohrer-Murphy, 1999) content classification, > see, for example  (cited Quintarelli, 2005) > see also: folksonomies, faceted_classification, ontologies, polyhierarchy, taxonomies, social_tagging, metadata, and community_metadata content_creation compared to content_management content_management content management system (CMS) > see also blog, wiki contextual knowledge see Hislop, (2005, p. 219-21) controlled vocabularies

Curtin University (Western Australia) > Net 214 a course about virtual communities, net214.wikispaces.com

 distributed classification systems e.g. Del.icio.us, e.g. Flickr (Mejisa, 2005) domain vocabularies, see also controlled vocabularies distributed ontologies, e.g. Klein, Michel's Ph.D distributed knowledge management > in the writings of Roberta Cuel, Matteo Bouquet and their colleagues [todo edit and insert dkm.doc 2006-08-07] > > Bonifacio, M., &amp; Bouquet, P. (2002). Distributed knowledge management: a systemic approach. In E. Pessa, G. Minati &amp; Associazione italiana per la ricerca sui sistemi. (Eds.), Emergence in complex, cognitive, social, and biological systems (pp. 299-312). New York; London, England: Kluwer Academic. > > Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., &amp; Cuel, R. (2002, September 16-18). The role of classification(s) in distributed knowledge management. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information Engineering Systems &amp; Allied Technologies (KES'2002), Special Session on Classification, Podere d'Ombriano, Crema (Italy). > > Cristani, M., &amp; Cuel, R. (2005). A survey on ontology creation methodologies. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 1(2), 49-69. > > Cristani, M., &amp; Cuel, R. (2006). Domain ontologies. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 137-144). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. > > Cuel, R., Bouquet, P., &amp; Bonifacio, M. (2006). Distributed knowledge management. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 122-127). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. distributed knowledge system, e.g. a way seeing an organisation as a dispersed system (Devinney, and Nikolova, c2005).  education > see blogs, classroom use of > wikis, classroom use of > Learning Federation (case study, for further research) > learning objects > Postgraduate Essentials (University of Melbourne) case study > Pronett (EU) case study emergence > emergence, theory of, see also lifecycle of a Community of Practice > see also Wenger (1998, pp. 96-98; 118; 227) emergent semantics emergent structures and unfolding interactions see Østerlund, &amp; Carlile, (2005) epistemology > see Cook, &amp; Brown (1999) //Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing// > e.g. King, D., &amp; Kimble, C. (2004). Uncovering the epistemological and ontological assumptions of software designers. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.SE/0406022 > see Hislop, (2005, p. 13-14; 223-224, 16-18; 27-28) > Hjorland, B. (2003). //Arguments for epistemology in information science//. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(8), 805–806. > Currie, G., &amp; Kerrin, M. (2004). The limits of a technological fix to knowledge management epistemological, political and cultural issues in the case of intranet implementation. Management Learning, 35(1), 9-29. > see Jashapara, A. (2005). //The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a new dawn for information science research?// Journal of Information Science, 31(2), 136-148. ethnoclassification, see folksonomies or social_tagging > see also //Ethnoclassification and vernacular vocabularies//, by Peter Merholz --  : - August 30, 2004 (cited Quintarelli, 2005) ethnographic fieldwork > e.g. Julian Orr’s study of the work of photocopy technicians at Xerox_case_study photocopy > e.g. Wenger (1998) p 284 Alinsu case study > e.g. the influence of John van Maanen’s work with city police evolving navigational structure see faceted classification evolving ontologies, see also distributed ontologies; emergent semantics > e.g. see Davies et al. (2005) ontoshare_case_study
 * **D** |
 * **E** |

 faceted classification > Defined by SR Ranganathan, a librarian, as [insert definition] > The faceted classification is used in systems architecture, in order to allow for flexibility in the evolving development of navigational structure (Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p. 207). The advantage of (to quote): > a faceted classification approach is that it provides greater power and flexibility. With the underlying descriptive metadata and structure in place, information architects and interface designers can experiment with [multiple] navigation options. (Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p. 207). Rosenfeld and Morville (2002) "predict that metadata, controlled vocabularies controlled vocabularies, and thesauri will become the building blocks of most major web sites and intranets,” (p. 208). > see Rosenfeld and Morville pp. 204-207 > see also //Faceted classification of information// (The Knowledge management connection) [], ('further reading', cited by Qunitarelli, 2005)
 * **F** |

feeds feedster.com (see Robertson, 2006 p. 83) Flickr > definition of … Flickr.com is a popular Web-based digital photography portal (Robertson, 2006). To Will Robertson Flickr is "true social software," since is a place "where … contributors con interact and share and learn from each others in [ways that are both] creative and interesting,” (2006, p. 102). Digital images in Flickr > explain how to interact and share and learn in Flickr > history of e.g. purchased by Yahoo in March 2005. > function of > re annotation with Flickr see annotation > use of FOAF folksonomies, see also social tagging > see esp. > > Guy, M., &amp; Tonkin, E. (2006). //Folksonomies: Tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine//, 12(1), online. > > Kroski, E. (2005, December 7). //The hive mind: Folksonomies and user-based tagging//. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2005/12/07/the-hive-mind-folksonomies-and-user-based-tagging/ > > Mathes, A. (2004, December). //Folksonomies – Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata//. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediatedcommunication/folksonomies.html > > Phelps, J. (2006, May, 2006). //Buzzwords 2006: Web2.0, social software and folksonomies//. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://arch.doit.wisc.edu/jim/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/CSG_SocialSoftware.ppt > > Quintarelli, E. (2005, June 24). //Folksonomies: power to the people//. Paper presented at the ISKO Italy-UniMIB, Milan, Italy.

framework The online [|WordNet database, accessed August 12, 2006] defines framework as a "model, theoretical account, framework (a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process) [e.g.] 'the computer program was based on a model of the circulatory and respiratory systems',"

> define ... perhaps a framework is full and comprehensive when it can describe a system of elements an each of the relations between them?

> describe, e.g. a framework recognises that it is difficult to provides a single comprehensive account of a particular phenomena, that there can be a multiplicity of discourses and partial constructs. > a framework is //not// a scientific narrative, since there is no single problem, no single hypothesis. > Questions: what does it mean for a framework to be 'robust'? > What is the way of testing a framework, to show that it can survive different tests? > How does this author show that a framework can be uses in different ways?

e.g. "A MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO DISTRIBUTED COMMUNITIES OF LEARNING AND PRACTICE", by Helen Hasan and Kathryn Crawford, Department of Information Systems, University of Wollongong, Australia [|pdf], accessed August 12, 2006]

> See, for example: //Instrumentalizing the Truth of Practice//, Katie Vann and Geoffrey C. Bowker [], accessed August 12, 2006] > Or Google [|framework robust multiplicity latour wenger] friend of a friend (FOAF) ontology

e.g. Bieber et al. (2002) on CI and virtual professional communities&gt;> Bieber, M., Im, I., Rice, R., Goldman-Segall, R., Paul, R., Stohr, E., et al. (2002, January 7-10). Towards knowledge-sharing and learning in virtual professional communities. Paper presented at the Thirty Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Community Informatics Minitrack), Big Island, HI.

framework, rationale for > quote "The increasingly digital era and the ensuing emphasis on information and knowledge challenge traditional organisational models," Dubé, Bourhis, &amp; Jacob, (2005). > Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., &amp; Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2).

Friend-Of-A-Friend (FOAF) ontology, see FOAF

Furl.net (owned by LookSmart), /Furling R135-135 > definition of > function of ??? e.g. save a snapshot of every pages (see Robertson, 2003, p 93-100 > creation and use of further_research glossary (navigation_tag) guided inquiry > an approach to inquiry-based training (see pedagogy)  habitus > see Wenger (1998, p. 289) > see also Pierre Bourdieu human computer action e.g. HIC and activity theory (Nardi, 1996; Kuutti 1996).  information architecture (IA) > information architects (IA) > e.g. Peter Morville
 * **G** |
 * **H** |
 * **I** |

inheritance, see Semantic Web fundamentals inquiry-training model > see pedagogy interpretive model > [todo] describe Devinney &amp; Nikolova's Interpretive Model and Implications for Consulting (c2005). interrelated concepts (theme in Tagunity) intranet > defined > as cms > as social media inside the firewall  journals > Mind, Culture and Activity, see MCA > Journal of Knowledge Management > Journal on International Semantic Web and Information > Organization Science
 * **J** |

 (KA)2 Semantic Web case study key words > e.g. in Flickr (see Robertson, 2006 p. 105) > see also social_tagging KMLF, Melbourne Knowledge Management Leadership Forum knowledge management > see explicit vs. tacit knowledge > see trust > see distributed knowledge management > see also document_management, content_management, CoPs, > ontologies and knowledge management knowledge management networks, see Figallo and Rhine knowledge networks > e.g. the title of a book edited by Paul Hildreth and Chris Kimble on CoPs and innovation; contains chapters by Donald Hislop, Bronwyn Stuckey and John D. Smith, Robin Teigland and Molly McLure Wasko, Shawn Callahan, and Nancy White. Knowledge Management Leadership Forum, see Melbourne KMLF, knowledge nodes or see Roberta Cuel knotworking > defined by Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, and Lehtinen, (2004 p.136) People do not work in "stable social communities." They may move from one project to another in socially intensive networks or be put together temporarily. Knotworking is an example of a concepts arising from overlapping conversations, in this case between authors influential in the field of activity theory; Hakkarainen et al. (2004) cite, for example, Engeström, Engeström and Karkkainer, 1995 and Engeström, Engeström and Vahaaho (1999). knowledge repositories > documenting practice (see Wenger, 2001, p. 39)  leadership, see for example > value_networks; e-leadership; complexity-theory; communities and leadership, e.g. Cargill (2006) or Callahan on CoPs and complexity. > theory of distributed leadership_practice, including CoPs and AT theory, see Working Paper: Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., &amp; Diamond, J. B. (2000). //Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective//. Evanston, Illinois: Institute For Policy Research. learning communities, types of e.g. task-based, practice-based, knowledge-based (Riel &amp; Polin, 2004) > Riel, M., &amp; Polin, L. (2004). //Online learning communities: Common ground and the critical differences in designing technical environments//. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling &amp; J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
 * **K** |
 * **L** |

> leadership, leader as coach > see Dubé, Bourhis, &amp; Jacob (2005) pp. 161-162

Learning Federation (case study, for further research) learning networks, e.g. Rovai (2002); see also sense of community. learning objects in e-learning learning objects and Actor-network theory, e.g. Margaryan, Littlejohn et al. (2006)

Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) e.g.

library studies > see community metadata > see new literacies

> e.g. see Robertson (2006 p. 126-127) > see faceted_classification > information competency: an approach to inquiry-based training (see pedagogy) lifecycle of a community of practice > If we suppose that learning is the "engine of practice," and "practice [results from the creation of a] history of that learning," as does Wenger (1998 p. 96), then if follows that a CoP has a lifecycle, and that lifecycle reflects the dynamic process of creating a learning history. A CoP is by nature, dynamic in its membership, learning, and practice. In Wenger’s view, a CoP’s structure is emergent, however there are multiple notions of the relation between community, structure and emergence (c.f. emergence theory). Wenger says his view on practice and structure is different that Bourdieu’s. But Wenger emphasises that his perspective on practice as a structure is different than that suggested by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and its relation to practice. Wenger writes that according to Bourdieu(1972; 1980) "practices are generated from an underlying structure," which [Bourdieu] calls habitus, but Wenger argues a community's //habitus// is "an emerging property of interacting practices, rather than their generative infrastructure, with an existence unto itself. linguistic concepts, e.g. so called "inter-ontology relationships" Alexiev, et al. (2005, p. 87) > categorical ambiguity (e.g. Pollock &amp; Hodgson, 2004, p. 79) > homonymy (e.g. Pollock &amp; Hodgson, 2004, p. 79); a word like another in sound, and perhaps spelling, but different in meaning, e.g. meat and meet (Macquarie, 2000). > hypernym > hyponym > polysemy (e.g. Pollock &amp; Hodgson, 2004, p. 79) > semantic_ambiguity > synonym, see also synonym rings (in information architecture) > see esp. Nilsson (2003)

Nilsson, S. (2003). //The function of language to facilitate and maintain social networks in research weblogs//, Umeå Universitet, Engelska lingvistik. [] linking concept e.g. RSS feeds in new media and Web 2.0.; chunking and granularity (e.g. in the context of learning_objects);

LPP, see Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP)

 machine processability > The "Semantic Web ... proposes to overcome the difficulties listed [associated with the problems of search engines and key word searches] by making Web content machine processable." (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis, &amp; Doerr, 2005. p. 2464). See Semantic Web mash-up, see social media inside the firewall; also Web 2.0 meaning > negotiation_of_meaning > and participation > and reification metadata > e.g. author generated metadata Greenberg, Pattuelli, Parsia, &amp; Davenport Robertson, &gt;&gt;Greenberg, Jane, Maria Cristina Pattuelli, Bijan Parsia and W. Davenport Robertson. “Author-?generated Dublin Core Metadata for Web Resources: A Baseline Study in an Organization.” Journal of Digital Information, Volume 2 Issue 2 Article No. 78, November 2001. 
 * **M** |

Metadata editor, see people roles: metadata editor/metator Metator, see people roles: metadata editor/metator

Melbourne, University of > see Postgraduate Essentials case study motivation for sharing > see Hislop, (2005, esp. 51-52, 54-55) > Ardichvili, Page, &amp; Wentling, (2003). //Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice//. Journal of Knowledge Management motivation to participate in online communities, ENoPs, vCoPs: > Wasko and Teigland (2006) > Teigland and Wasko (2005)

Roberts, Smith, Pollock (2006) > Wasko and Faraj (2000) > e.g. trust motivation, e.g. > to assign metadata into Flickr or Del.icio.us (see Jon Udell, quoted Mejias, 2004)

 NET214 course at Curtin University (Western Australia)  organisational performance
 * **N** |
 * **O** |

ontology, see ontologies > defined, > In simple terms, an ontology is a formal specification of "the terms used to describe and represent an area of knowledge, Juszczyszyn (2006, p.497). In other words an ontology is: "A consensual and formal description of share concepts in a domain. Typically, it organises the objects of a domain into classes [//todo// check #classes anchor] and includes a hierarchy of classes (e.g. printers are hardware devices). Ontologies are used to aid human communication and shared understanding and also communication among software applications, (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis, &amp; Doerr, 2005, p. 2468)

Ontology, in the sense that it is used in both artificial intelligence, and the theory behind the Semantic Web, requires the knowledge represented be machine readable. > Grigoris Antoniou and his colleagues predict that "[ontologies] will describe semantic relationships between terms and will serve as the foundation for establishing shared understanding between applications," (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis, &amp; Doerr, 2005, p. 2465) > > Antoniou, G., Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., &amp; Doerr, M. (2005). //Semantic Web fundamentals//. In M. Khosrowpour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 2464-2468). Hershey, PA; London, UK: Idea Group Reference.. Juszczyszyn cites Studer, Benjamins, &amp; Fensel, 1998), to define ontologies as > > "explicit, formal specification of a shared conceptualisation. In this case a //conceptualisation// stands for an abstract model of some concept from the real world; explicit means that the type of concept is explicitly defined. //Formal// refers to the fact that an ontology should be machine readable; and finally //shared// means the ontology expresses knowledge that is accepted by all the subjects. Juszczyszyn (2006, p.497; c.f. Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., &amp; Fensel, D. (1998). //Knowledge engineering, principles and methods//. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197.

ontology design, & KM > e.g. Holsapple & Joshi, (2002) &gt;> Holsapple, C. W., &amp; Joshi, K. D. (2002). A collaborative approach to ontology design: Creating a general ontology characterizing the conduct of knowledge management. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 42-47.

ontology_alignment, e.g. Juszczyszyn, K. (2006). //Virtual communities and the alignment of web ontologies//. In S. Dasgupta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies (pp. 497-499). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. > quote: As Juszczyszyn points out: "the Semantic Web is a vision of the future Web in which information is given explicit meaning," (2006, p. 497). Juszczyszyn goes on to note, however, "that the word ontology has been used to describe notions with different degrees of structure – from taxonomies (e.g. Yahoo hierarchy), metadata schemes (e.g. Dublin Core), to logical theories,” (2006, p. 497). So, what then is ontology alignment, and why is it important? > quote from glossary: Mapping between concepts defined in a source ontology and concepts defined in a target ontology in order to fine the concepts with similar (or the same) meaning. (Juszczyszyn, 2006, p. 499). > Juszczyszyn says ontology alignment is the operation of identifying "concepts that are semantically close or identical (via equivalence or subsumption relations) to achieve mutual understanding of processed data,” (2006, p. 497). > todo //define equivalence// > todo //define subsumption relations// > see also virtual communities
 * What then is ontology alignment?**
 * why is ontology alignment important?** Juszczyszyn argues "Emerging Semantic Web offers vast possibilities of knowledge acquisition and sharing across virtual communities.” [While the] need for share ontologies is particularly recognised within electronic commerce, virtual organisations, and scientific research,” to Juszczyszyn "reliable methods for alignment of Web ontologies" are needed in order to make information easily more searchable, and to make it easier for people and computers communication.

ontology management, e.g. community driven, see ontology_engineering

ontologies, e.g. > ontologies, alignment of, see ontology_alignment > ontologies, distributed see distributed_ontologies, e.g. Klein, Michel's Ph.D > ontologies, history of (origins in artificial intelligence (AI); "Since the early 1990s, ontologies have been a popular research topic,” in various AI research communities including "knowledge engineering, natural language processing and knowledge representation. More recently, the use of ontologies has also become widespread in fields such as … electronic commerce and knowledge management. (Davies, Fensel, &amp; van Harmelen, 2003, p. 4) > ontologies, role of: Davies, Fensel, &amp; van Harmelen, (2003) i.e. Davies, J., Fensel, D., &amp; van Harmelen, F. (Eds.). (2003). Towards the Semantic Web: Ontology-driven knowledge management. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. > ontologies, benefits of: Ontologies’may be particularly popularity especially large well resourced organisations (medical research and pharmacology corporations, perhaps) may be due to belief in ontologies’promise to deliver benefits deriving from the development of "shared and common understanding of a domain that can be communicated between people and application systems,” (Davies, Fensel, &amp; van Harmelen, 2003, pp. 4-5). [then Mika et al. on ontologies and KM] > local vs. global ontologies > Alexiev, and his colleagues (2005) outline two "paradigm in information_integration: (1) merging data models into a central model, and (2) aligning and mapping models. In the ontology engineering community these approaches are known as ontology_merging and ontology_aligning. [//continue// from photocopy of Alexiev, et al. 2005 //Information integration with ontologies// p. 64] > ontologies, examples: beer ontology, friend of a friend (FOAF) ontology ontologies, see also: > emergent semantics > evolving ontologies > ontologies and knowledge management > ontology driven knowledge management (Davies, Fensel, van Harmelen, 2003) ontology engineering e.g. ontology_merging and ontology_aligning see Noy and Musen (1999), as cited Alexiev et al. (2005). ontoshare_case_study overlapping conversation (theme in Tagunity) on-line > communities, management of (see Wenger, 2001, p. 18) > discussion groups (as online conversations, see Wenger, (2001, p 23) > meeting spaces, e.g. synchronous interactions (see Wenger, 2001, p. 28) organisational learning > for example, Peter Senge, Nancy Dixon, Chris Argyris, collective interpretation, > also, influence of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1978) on the concepts of distributed knowledge management. pedagogy people roles
 * **P** |

perspectives (i.e. ‘world views’) > see Wenger (1998, p?)

platypus paradox

practice > e.g. Wenger (1998, pp. 45 > 50) polyhierarchy polyhierarchy

practice based theories/practice-based perspectives > multidimensionality of (see Hislop, 2005, 33) > see also epistemology > see Activity Theory, Actor-Network Theory, Communities of Practice practice theories e.g. > Østerlund, C., &amp; Carlile, P. (2005). //Relations in practice: Sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations//. Information Society, 21(2), 91–107. > Østerlund, C., &amp; Carlile, P. (2003). //How practice matters: a relational view of knowledge sharing//. In Communities and Technologies. Proc. First International Conference on Communities and Technologies. (pp. 91–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

 quotes > e.g. Edward R. Murrow: “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends, “ said Edward R. Murrow of the television almost 50 years ago. [|http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/socially_redeeming_web_20, accessed August 18, 2006]
 * **Q** |

 RDF (Resource Description Framework) > The basic language of the Semantic Web; used for describing Web resources. //See// Semantic Web fundamentals read/write web (Robertson, 2006) > definition of Berners-Lee’s concept > R 127-133 > in education (e.g. Robertson, 2006, 125-126, 135-137) Robertson suggests that teachers who employ blogs and wikis are equipping their students with skills they will use in the information reading and writing skills they will need in the future. > impact of Tim Robertson suggest that "the read/write Web is changing our relationship to technology and rewriting the age old paradigm of how things work," (Robertson 2006, p. 3) > trends As the quantity of content on the World Wide Web continues to grow so rapidly, it is a major challenge for any person or organisation to keep track of the information even in a particular area of expertise. Tim Robertson quotes author Thomas Friedman who writes: “we are now in the process of connecting all the knowledge pools in the world together Friedman, 2005; quoted Robertson 2006, p.125). Tim Robertson highlights a trend towards of Web content creation becoming increasingly collaborative. reification (e.g. see Wenger, 1998)
 * **R** |

Really Simple Syndication, see RSS

resource-based education > an approach to inquiry-based training (see pedagogy)

RSS (Really Simple Syndication)

 semantic_ambiguity Semantic Blogger case study semantic interoperability semantic learning objects, from Garcia, F. J., Berlanga, A. J., &amp; Garcia, J. (2006). //A semantic learning objects authoring tool//. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 504-510). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. semantic_learning_organisation, e.g. Sicilia and Lytras (2005) //todo// add to endnote semantic community portals, see ontology_engineering
 * **S** |

semantic_relationships > associative (Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.199) > equivalence(Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.198) > examples of (Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.188) > hierarchical(Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.198) > in thesauri(Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.187)

SLIS-L 571, a course on information architecture, taught to teacher trainees, at the University of Indiana

Semantic Web fundamentals, e.g. > “RDF (Resource Description Framework) Schema: This is a primitive ontology language that is integrated with RDF. Its basic operations are the definition of classes and properties, their organisation into hierarchies, and domain and range restrictions on properties,” (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis &amp; Doerr 2005, p. 2468) > Cristani &amp; Cuel (2005) > try Guarino (1995) [Guarino_ontology_knowledge_representation.pdf] > Antoniou, G., Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., &amp; Doerr, M. (2005). Semantic Web fundamentals. In M. Khosrowpour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 2464-2468). Hershey, PA; London, UK: Idea Group Reference. > Antoniou, G., &amp; van Harmelen, F. (2004). A Semantic Web Primer. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Semantic Web, challenges for > challenges for the vision of the Semantic Web: > Tool development and user uptake are two success factors critical to achieving the Semantic Web, suggest Grigoris Antoniou and his colleagues. Professional tools need to be developed that will enable users to annotate pages and link them to existing ontologies. Tools are also needed that will enable users to develop ontologies and reason with them. Antoniou et al. predict that “initial success can be expected either in environments with //central authority// (e.g. in the knowledge management or large organisations) or in the emergence of //virtual communities//,” (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis &amp; Doerr (2005, p. 2467, emphasis added).

Semantic Web research project > defined > see also, > Berners-Lee, Tim

Semantic Web predictions > Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis, &amp; Doerr (2005, table 3, p. 2497), predict that through the use of technologies associated with the Semantic Web > "Knowledge will be organised in conceptual spaces ... according to [formal representations of] concepts and their interrelations, not according to keywords or other ad hoc means.

Semantic Web vision, A vision "created by Berners-Lee, Tim, the person who created the WWW," (Antoniou, Christophides, Plexousakis, &amp; Doerr, 2005, p. 2465) semiotic dynamics Cattuto, Loreto and Pietroneor (2006) explain that semiotic dynamics is "a new field that studies how populations of humans or agents can establish and share semiotic systems, typically driven by their use in communication," (p1; c.f. > Del.icio.us and Connotea > “On studying Del.icio.us we adopt a tag-centric view of the system, that is we investigate the evolving relationship between a given tag and the set of tags that co-occur with it. In line with our focus on semiotic dynamics, we factor out the detailed identity of the users involved in the process > "we expect our observations to be representative of a general and complex semiotic structure underlying folksonomies," (p. 6) > Conclusion: "Uncovering the mechanisms governing the emergence of shared categorizations or vocabularies in absence of global coordination is a key problem with significant scientific and technological potential. Collaborative tagging provides a precious opportunity to both analyse the emergence of shared conventions and inspire the design of large (human or artificial) agent systems. Here we report a statistical analysis of tagging activity in a popular social bookmarking system, and introduce a simple stochastic model of user behaviour which is able to reproduce the measured co-occurrence properties to a surprisingly level of accuracy. Our results suggest that users of collaborative tagging systems share universal behaviours which, despite the intricacies of personal categorization, tagging procedures and user interactions, appear to follow simple activity patterns. In addition to the findings reported and discussed in this paper, our approach constitutes a starting point upon which studies of greater complexity can be based, with the final goal of understanding, predicting and controlling the Semiotic Dynamics of online social systems,” (p. 6). > but also search for C. Cattuto and V. Loreto, //Semiotic Dynamics in Online Social Communities//, in preparation (2006)//todo:// search this paper/article?.

situated learning > Jean Lave and Wenger (1991) > see also Dixon (1999, p. 174-175) [[social_bookmarking > definition of “Bookmarking sites allow users to not just save the Web addresses of interesting content. They allow readers to save and archive entire pages, thus producing a form of searchable ‘personal Internet,’(Robertson, 2006, p. 8). Del.icio.us and furl are two social bookmarking tools that have a substantial user base (Robertson, 2006, p. 100). > social_bookmarking with Del.icio.us > social_bookmarking with Furl > social_bookmarking > in education (see Robertson 92) “[S]ocial bookmarking sites like Furl.net and Del.icio.us allow teachers and students to build subject specific resource lists that that can easily share when using RSS.” Will Robertson suggest that This … creates a community of information gathers who extend the reach of any one person,” (Robertson, 2006, p. 8)

sense of community > e.g. Roberts, Smith and Pollock (2006)

"social, collaborative construction of … knowledge" > (from Robertson, 2006, p. 128-129): Robertson suggest that students are usually expected to do their work in isolation, and that their work will usually have a very limited audience, most often merely the teacher responsible for checking or assignments or giving them a grade. To Robertson this has been the way things are done in schools, and they have been done that way for generations. He also emphasises once work is finished, it put aside and is no longer part of classes’learning processes. Robertson point to the “grand vision” (2006, p. 1) TBL’s dream of the Read/Write Web, and the optimistic view the RSS and related tools can be used in ways that support the “social, collaborative construction of meaningful knowledge,” (Robertson, 2006, p. 128). According to Robertson it is now easy for students to work in collaborative ways to produce online content for (potentially) large audiences. Robertson emphasises that producing online content in collaborative ways can have real meaning and purpose for those who read and consume the students’content. Content argues creation and publishing of online content by students takes into consideration of a “new social context,” on that requires us to rethink how we understand the way content offers the possibility of new conversations between readers and writers. The Web CMS, blog, or wiki offers the chance for the reader and writer to contribute to one-an-others spaces. The “new social context” in Robertson’s view student of student writing is that content produced and published online is a contribution to the read/write Web, rather that be seen as something that is “finished”, the content published in an online CMS, blog, or wiki a “something [that may] added to and refined by those outside the classroom who may interact with it,” (2006, p. 128-129). Richardson’s views are supported by emerging cases, not coming from classrooms, but from business interest in communications between peers in the US Army (see CompanyCommand case study), technology concepts being evangelised in the business world (mash-ups, and more generally and technologies associated with RSS and Web 2.0).

social bookmarking services/tools > e.g. Robertson 8-9 social constructivist philosophy, see Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, Squire &amp; Keating, (2002) //Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course// who cite: Barab, Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy &amp; Perry, 1992; Dewey, 1963; Edwards, 1995;Vygotsky, 1978).

social information architecture (SIA) from Mwanza &amp; Engeström (2005) social learning theory > e.g. Wenger (1998) on contexts social informatics, e.g. > Ruhi, U. (2006). //A social informatics framework for sustaining virtual communities of practice//. In E. Coakes &amp; S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 466-473). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. social media inside the firewall, see also Web 2.0 Social network theory/social network analysis (SNA) social tagging Sociosemantic web, and see Morville, Peter e.g. Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: What we find changes who we become. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.

//sociotechnical concepts applied to information systems// title from Jim Coakes &amp; Elayne Coakes (2005) //todo// add to endnote structured data (term used by Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002, p.48) > definition of structured data? subclass, see Semantic Web fundamentals subject matter experts, see also people_roles > (SMEs) (Rosenfeld and Morville 2002, p. 100), subjective, see Bonifacio and Bouquet on distributed knowledge management [//add anchor//?] synonym rings, see also controlled vocabularies

> “A synonym rings connects a set of words that are defined as equivalent for the purposes of retrieval, (Rosenfeld &amp; Morville 2002, p. 178), within the particular context, particularly with the use of a particular use set of synonyms. For example, to child an orange may be an item in their school lunch, however to a fruit grower or in the context of a portal for growers of citric fruits, there is a notable difference between orange varieties. Thus on person’s synonym is another persons’Semantic Web fundamentals

 tacit_knowledge (e.g. Hislop, 2005) > practice-based perspectives (e.g. Hislop, 2005, p. 27-28; 30-31) > see also epistemologies > sharing of (e.g. Hislop, 2005, p. 21-3) tacit vs. explicit > see also epistemologies > e.g. Wenger (1998, p. 47, 66-69, 140, 285, 290); as Wenger (1998, p. 287) points out, the distinction between see tacit vs explicit knowledge is most commonly associated with the work of Michael Polanyi (1983). tag_literacy e.g. Mejias, april 6, 2005 dcs tags
 * **T** |

taxonomies > unwieldy, see Mejias' quote of Jon Udell, regarding motivation to assign metadata to content. //technology for communities// [], a blog by Wenger, Etienne, John D. Smith, Kim Row, and White, Nancy teacher professional development Schlager, Fusco &amp; Schank, (2002) provide an overview on an online CoPs model (for k-12 education professional) 'teacher professional development' (TPD). technology development projects, and CoPs integration (Garretty, Robertson, Badham, 2004) [//todo: add to Endnote//] technology’s role in community (Menegon & D'Andrea, 2004) technical platfort, for further research themes in Tagunity > overlapping conversations > interrelated concepts tools > Flickr > Technorati thesauri, see controlled vocabulary

topic map An ISO standard for the representation of an ontology, (p. 317). Brown, (2003. P. 308) quotes, ISO 13250 The ISO Topic Maps standard: > [quote] … provides a standardised notation for interchangeably representing information about the structure of information resources used to deveing [//check//] topics, and the relationships between topics. A set of one or more interrelated documents that employs the notation defined by this international standards is called a topic map. (ISO 13250, second edition, May 2002; quoted Brown, 2003, p. 308) > see also Garshol (2004) at [], and Garshol on Controlled vocabularies [], Taxonomies [], Thesauri [], Faceted classification [], Ontologies []  Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) e.g. Nelson, S. J., Powell, T., &amp; Humphreys, B. L. (2002). //The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) project//. In A. Kent &amp; C. M. Hall (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (2nd edition? ed., pp. 369-378). New York: Marcel Dekker. University courses > Curtin University (Western Australia) NET214.wikispaces.com > University of Indiana (US) e.g. Sasha Barab, bloomingtonhouston > University of Maryland (US) – Jenny Preece and Vedat G. Diker teach [|INFM 718J] > Postgraduate Essentials (University of Melbourne) University of Indiana > e.g. http://bloomingtonhouston.wikispaces.com/Peer+Feedback > e.g. Sasha Barab University of Melbourne, see Postgraduate Essentials case study University of Trento Department of Information and Communication Technology, e.g. Francesca Menegon, &amp; Vincenzo D'Andrea on technology_in_community University of Waikato, see CoPs case study by Janson, Howard, &amp; Schoenberger-Orgad (2004) US Army see CompanyCommand case study US Navy, e.g. Kendall, R. E., &amp; McHale, K. J. (2003). //Evolution: Advancing communities of practice in naval intelligence//. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. value networks Verna Allee et al. e.g. (Allee 2003), as a move from the "traditional perspective on organisations," (Scheiffer, 2004, p. 194) interview with Verna Allee
 * **U** |
 * **V** |

virtual_communities > e.g. Dasgupta’s (2006) Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies including Champion, (2006). Virtual places. Gurr, (2006), on e-leadership; Roberts, Smith, &amp; Pollock, (2006): Psychological sense of community in virtual communities; Teigland, &amp; Wasko, (2006). On electronic networks of practice vocabularies, see controlled vocabularies

 Web 2.0 wikis e.g. wikispaces.com Wikispaces > e.g. Net214 > Bill Hall > TaxoCoP > choconancy
 * **W** |

world view > see perspective (e.g. Wenger, 1998)  > Polanyi, Michael (1983) > Williams, Raymond (1976)
 * TODO**, add these references, as cited in Wenger (1998)