課程資訊
課程名稱
 資訊組織研討
Seminar in Information Organization 
開課學期
 108-2 
授課對象
 文學院  圖書資訊學研究所  
授課教師
 藍文欽 
課號
 LIS7013 
課程識別碼
 126 M0570 
班次
  
學分
 3.0 
全/半年
 半年 
必/選修
 必修 
上課時間
 星期二2,3,4(9:10~12:10) 
上課地點
 圖資編目室 
備註
 限碩士班以上 或 限博士班
總人數上限：30人 
Ceiba 課程網頁
 http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1082LIS7013_IOS 
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
 核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

資訊組織是藉由描述資訊物件（information objects）之載體與內容，建立代表原件之替代記錄(surrogate / representation)，並予以系統化的組織，建置成檢索工具，以幫助使用者依其資訊需求查詢、檢索、辨識、評估、及查知資料所在。
本課程以本系大學部之「資訊組織一」及「資訊組織二」或碩士班之「資訊蒐集與組織」為先備課程，旨在研討圖書資訊組織與書目控制的理論基礎、原則、標準、相關問題、發展歷史與趨勢等。本課程屬於研討性質，重點在文獻研讀、分享與討論，希望藉此引領同學對資訊組織的相關議題作更深刻的探索與思考。
 

課程目標
  熟悉資訊組織之核心概念與基本原理、原則
 理解資訊組織相關規範與標準的意涵與功用
 對資訊組織的新興議題與發展趨勢能有所掌握
 對資訊組織領域的研究議題與方法能有基本認識 
課程要求
 成績評分標準：
1. 課堂報告（Class presentations）（10%）
 每週有三篇指定文獻，分別由三位同學負責導讀及引導討論。
2. 課堂參與 (10%)
 本課程為研討性質，請踴躍提問及分享看法。
3. 文獻摘要（30%）
 每週有三篇指定文獻，各篇請分別撰寫500字左右的摘要。
 每篇請列出一個問題，並簡述你關注該問題的原因。
4. Literature review term paper（50%）（繳交日期：7月1日 17:00 以前）
 請參考Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST)，以此作為撰寫文獻回顧的範例。
 另可參見ISKO Knowledge Organization Literature (https://www.isko.org/lit.html)，選擇class中02 Literature Review in KO (https://www.isko.org/kolit.php?cl=02&au=&ti=&da=&la=)
 原則上，收錄範圍建議自2000年後迄今。但若所選題材較新，則從其出現的年份開始。
 請於4月21日繳交一頁note，說明你的題目、研究重點與範圍、資料蒐集方法等。原則上，希望同學的題目不重複；若有重複，我們另行協調處理。
 學期最後三週安排課堂報告，由每位同學分享文獻回顧的發現與心得。
 文字報告的格式，字體大小請選12，行距採1.5行間距。
 請遵守學術規範的要求，並依此提供引文註釋與參考書目。請於APA或Chicago Style中擇一，注意操作上之一致性與正確性。若作業精確認為抄襲者，作業不予計分。

可考慮的主題包括(若擬選擇的主題不在下列項目中，請先與授課教師商榷)：
 the historical context for knowledge organization;
 key concepts (e.g., topicality/aboutness, document theory, literary warrants, cultural warrant, etc.);
 FRBR family (e.g., FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD, IFLA LRM, etc.);
 problems related to metadata (e.g., resource description/surrogate, subject headings, metadata applications, metadata quality, metadata interoperability, ethical issues);
 knowledge representation (ontology, taxonomy, classification, folksonomy/social tagging);
 domain analysis (works, content representation, content evolution, informetric analysis of domains);
 language processing (subject analysis, indexing, vocabulary control, thesaurus construction, etc.);
 authority control, identity management;
 catalog use study;
 next generation catalog, discovery services;
 encoding schemes (e.g., MARC, Bibframe, etc.); and
 linked data and IO/KO. 
預期每週課後學習時數
  
Office Hours
 每週二 12:30~13:30
每週二 12:30~13:30 
指定閱讀
 請見各週指定閱讀 
參考書目
  卜小蝶(2007)。使用者導向之網路資源組織與檢索。臺北市：文華圖書館管理。
 何光國(1990)。圖書資訊組織原理。臺北市：三民。
 張慧銖(2003)。圖書館目錄發展研究。臺北市：文華圖書館管理。
 張慧銖(2011)。圖書館電子資源組織：從書架到網路。新北市：華藝學術。
 張慧銖等(2016)。主題分析。新北市：華藝學術。
 張慧銖等(2017)。資訊組織。新北市：華藝學術。
 Abbas, J. (2010). Structures for organizing knowledge: Exploring taxonomies, ontologies, and other schemas. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
 Auer, S., Bryl, V., & Tramp, S. (Eds.) (2014). Linked open data: Creating knowledge out of interlinked data: Results of the LOD2 Project. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
 Baca, M. (Ed.) (2016). Introduction to metadata (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Getty Information Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.getty.edu/publications/intrometadata/
 Batley, S. (2007). Information architecture for information professionals. Oxford: Chandos.
 Bauer, F., & Kaltenböck, M. (2012). Linked open data: The essentials: A quick start guide for decision makers. Vienna, Austria: Edition mono/monochrom.
 Bean, C. A., & Green, R. (2001). Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Blair, D. C. (1990). Language and representation in information retrieval. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
 Borgman, C. L. (2000). From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: Access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
 Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting thing out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Broughton, V. (2015). Essential classification (2nd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
 Broughton, V. (2020). Facet analysis. London: Facet Publishing. [即將出版，訂購中]
 Brubaker, J. (2018). Text, lies and cataloging: Ethical treatment of deceptive works in the library. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company.
 Caplan, P. (2003). Metadata fundamentals for all librarians. Chicago: American Library Association, 2003.
 Carpenter, M., & Svenonius, E. (Eds.) (1985). Foundations of cataloging: A sourcebook. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.
 Carter, R. C. (2000). Managing cataloging and the organization of information: Philosophies, practices, and challenges at the onset of the 21st century. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press. [Co-published simultaneously as Cataloging & classification quarterly, v. 30, nos. 1 and 2/3]
 Cervone, H. F., & Svensson, L. G. (Eds.) (2015). Linked data and user interaction: The road ahead. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
 Chamber, S. (Ed.) (2013). Catalogue 2.0: The future of the library catalogue. London: Facet.
 Chan, L. M., Richmond, P. A., & Svenonius, E. (Eds.) (1985). Theory of subject analysis: A sourcebook. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.
 Chan, L. M., & Salaba, A. (2016). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (4th ed.). Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
 Coyle, K. (2016). FRBR before and after: A look at our bibliographic models. Chicago: ALA.
 Coyle, K., et al. (2017). PCC SCS/LDAC Task Group on the Work Entity: Preliminary white paper. Available from: https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PoCo-2017/WorkEntitity%20Preliminary%20White%20Paper-2017-09-27.pdf
 Currás, E. (2010). Ontologies, taxonomies and thesauri in systems science and systematic. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
 Day, R. E. (2014). Indexing it all: The subject in the age of documentation, information, and data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Drabenstott, K. M., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (1994). Using subject headings for online retrieval: Theory, practice, and potential. San Diego: Academic Press.
 Eden, B, L. (Ed.) (2016). Rethinking technical services: New frameworks, new skill sets, new tools, new roles. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
 Foskett, A. C. (1996). The subject approach to information (5th ed.). London : Library Association Pub.
 Frické, M. (2012). Logic and the organization of information. New York: Springer.
 Garibyan, M., McLeish, S., & Paschoud, J. (2014). Access and identity management for libraries: Controlling access to online information. London: Facet.
 Gedikli, F. (2013). Recommender systems and the social web leveraging tagging data for recommender systems. Wiesbaden: Springer.
 Godby, C. J., Wang, S., & Mixter, J. (2015). Library linked data in the cloud: OCLC's experiments with new models of resource description. San Rafael, California: Morgan & Claypool.
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [本校訂有電子版]
 2016之4th edition有下列三種版本，作者均提供免費下載
 Core concept edition: https://ischools.org/Discipline-of-Organizing-Core-Concept
 Informatics edition: https://ischools.org/Discipline-of-Organizing-Informatics
 Professional edition: https://ischools.org/Discipline-of-Organizing-Professional
 Green, R., Bean, C. A., & Myaeng, S. H. (Eds.) (2002). The semantics of relationships: An interdisciplinary perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub.
 Harpring, P. (2010). Introduction to controlled vocabularies: Terminology for art, architecture, and other cultural works (online edition). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Available from: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intro_controlled_vocab/index.html
 Hart, A. (2010). The RDA primer: A guide for the occasional cataloger [electronic resource]. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Linworth.
 Harth, A., Hose, K., & Schenkel, R. (2014). Linked data management. Boca Raton : CRC Press/Taylor & Francis
 Heath, T., & Bizer, C. (2011). Linked data: Evolving the Web into a global data space. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool. HTML version: http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/
 Hjørland, B. (1997). Information seeking and subject representation: An activity-theoretical approach to information science. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
 Hlava, M. M. K. (2015). The taxobook: History, theories and concepts of knowledge organization. Part 1 of a 3-part series. [San Rafael, California]: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
 Hodge, G. (2000). Systems of knowledge organization for digital libraries: Beyond traditional authority files. Washington, DC: The Digital Library Federation. Retrieved from: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/pub91.pdf
 Hooland, S. van, & Verborgh, R. (2014). Linked data for libraries, archives and museums: How to clean, link and publish your metadata. London : Facet Publishing. [Data and examples available at: http://book.freeyourmetadata.org/]
 Hsieh-Yee, I. (2000). Organizing audiovisual and electronic resources for access: A cataloging guide. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited. [訂購中]
 Hsieh-Yee, I. (2016). Organizing for Access with FRBR, RDA, Linked Data, and Beyond. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.
 Hyvonen, E. (2012). Publishing and using cultural heritage linked data on the semantic web. San Rafael, Calif.: Morgan & Claypool.
 Jin, Q. (2012). Demystifying FRAD: Functional Requirements for Authority Data. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
 Jones, E. & Seikel, M. (Eds.) (2016). Linked data for cultural heritage. Chicago: ALA.
 Jones, W., Ahronheim, J. R., & Crawford, J. (2002). Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC 21. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
 Joudrey, D. N., Taylor, A. G., & Miller, D. P. (2015). Introduction to cataloging and classification (11th ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited. [電子版]
 Jourdrey, D. N., & Taylor, A. G. (2018). The organization of information (4th ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited.
 Konstantinou, N., & Spanos, D.-E. (2015). Materializing the web of linked data. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
 Latif, A. (2011). Understanding linked open data: For linked data discovery, consumption, triplification and application development. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
 Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower learners. Chicago: ALA.
 Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (Eds.) (2016). Metaliteracy in practice. Chicago: ALA.
 Mann, T. (1993). Library research models: A guide to classification, cataloging, and computers. New York : Oxford University Press.
 Marcella, R., & Maltby, A. (Eds.) (2000). The future of classification. Aldershot, Eng.; Brookfield, VT: Gower.
 Marinho, L. B., et al. (2012). Recommender systems for social tagging systems. Boston: Springer US.
 Maxwell, R. L. (2008). FRBR: A guide for the perplexed. Chicago: American Library Association.
 Miller, D. R., and Clarke, K. S. (2004). Putting XML to work in the library: Tools for improving access and management. Chicago: American Library Association.
 Mitchell, A. M., & Surratt, B. E. (2005). Cataloging and organizing digital resources: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. London: Facet Publishing.
 Oliver, C. (2010). Introducing RDA: A guide to the basics [electronic resource]. Chicago: American Library Association.
 Olson, H. A., & Boll, J. J. (2001). Subject analysis in online catalogs. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.
 Pennington, D. R., Spiteri, L. F. (Eds.) (2019). Social tagging in a linked data environment. London: Facet Publishing.
 Peters, T. A. (1991). The online catalog: A critical examination. Jefferson: McFarland.
 Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (P. Becker, trans.). Berlin: De Gruyter/Saur.
 Porumbeanu Madge, O.-L., et al. (2017). Ethical issues in library and information science. United Kingdom: Koros Press Limited.
 Rietveld, L. (2016). Publishing and consuming linked data: Optimizing for the unknown. Berline: IOS Press.
 Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information architecture: For the web and beyond (4th ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. [中譯本：資訊架構學(臺北市：碁峰資訊, 2017)]
 Rowley, J., & Farrow, J. (2002). Organizing knowledge: An introduction to managing access to information (3rd ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate.
 Sandberg, J. (Ed.) (2019). Ethical questions in name authority control. Sacramento: Library Juice Press. [訂購中]
 Sandberg-Fox, A. M. (2001). Proceedings of the bicentennial conference on bibliographic control for the new millennium: Confronting the challenges of networked resources and the Web. Washington, DC : Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service. Retrieved from: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/conference.html
 Schwartz, C. (2001). Sorting out the Web: Approaches to subject access. Westport, Conn.: Ablex Pub.
 Shera, J. H., & Egan, M. E. (Eds.) (1951). Bibliographic organization: Papers presented before the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School, July 24-29, 1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Sicilia, M.-A. (Ed.) (2014). Handbook of metadata, semantics and ontologies. Singapore ; Hackensack.
 Sikos, L.F. (2015) Mastering structured data on the semantic web. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2001). The nature of a work: Implications for the organization of knowledge. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2015). Domain analysis for knowledge organization: Tools for ontology extraction. Waltham, MA: Chandos Publishing.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (Ed.) (2002). Works as entities for information retrieval. New York: Haworth Information Press. [Co-published simultaneously as Cataloging & classification quarterly, v. 33, nos. 3/4]
 Smiraglia, R. P., & Lee, H.-L. (Eds.) (2012). Cultural frames of knowledge. Wurzburg: Ergon-Verlag.
 Smiraglia, R. P., & Lee, H.-L. (Eds.) (2015). Ontology for knowledge organization. Wurzburg: Ergon-Verlag.
 Smiraglia, R. P., Riva, P., & Žumer, M. (Eds.) (2013). The FRBR family of conceptual models: Toward a linked bibliographic future. London: Routledge. [Co-published simultaneously as Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, vol. 50, issue 5-7]
 Smith, G. (2008). Tagging: People-powered metadata for the social web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. [簡體字中譯本：《標籤系統:為社會化網路注入源於用戶的元數據》]
 Spiteri, L. F. (Ed.) (2016). Managing metadata in web-scale discovery systems. London: Facet Publishing.
 Stock, W. G., & Stock, M. (2015). Handbook of information science. Berlin: De Gruyter.
 Stuary, D. (2016). Practical ontologies for information professionals. London: Facet Publishing.
 Svenonius, E. (Ed.) (1989). The conceptual foundations of descriptive cataloging. San Diego: Academic Press.
 Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.
 Sylva, L. (Ed.) (2014). Cataloging and classification: trends, transformations, teaching, and training. Uxbridge: Koros.
 Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [本校訂有電子版]
 Taylor, A. G., ed. (2007). Understanding FRBR: What it is and how it will affect our retrieval tools. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
 W3C (2014). RDF 1.1 primer. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/
 Williamson, Nancy J., & Hudon, Michele. (1992). Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
 Wood, D., Zaidman, M., & Ruth, L. (2014). Linked data: Structured data on the Web. Shelter Island: Manning.
 Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2009). Implementing FRBR in libraries: Key issues and future directions. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
 Zeng, M. L., & Qin, J. (2016). Metadata (2nd ed.). London : Facet Publishing.
 [Companion Website: http://metadataetc.org/book-website2nd/]
 Žumer, M., Zeng, M. L., & Salaba, A. (2012). FRSAD: Conceptual modeling of aboutness. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Libraries Unlimited.

Useful Web Sites
 ISKO Knowledge Organization Literature http://www.isko.org/lit.html
 ISKO Encyclopedia for Knowledge Organization http://www.isko.org/cyclo/
 Knowledge Organization 電子版：https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/zeitschrift/0943-7444
 Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/index
 S. R. Ranganthan’s 相關著作全文 [請在檢索框輸入Ranganthan查詢] https://repository.arizona.edu/browse?type=author&value=Ranganathan%2C+S.+R.
 Ranganthan Portal http://www.isibang.ac.in/~library/portal/
 Concepts in Library & Information Science and Knowledge Organization compiled by Birger Hjørland https://web.archive.org/web/20090620061036/http://www.db.dk:80/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/home.htm
 The Epistemological Lifeboat: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science for Information Scientists compiled by Birger Hjørland and Jeppe Nicolaisen. https://web.archive.org/web/20070609222514/http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/
 Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization compiled by Birger Hjørland https://web.archive.org/web/20090104084110/http://www.db.dk:80/bh/Lifeboat_KO/home.htm
 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
  
No.
項目
百分比
說明
1. 
 課堂報告 
10% 
 每週有三篇指定文獻，分別由三位同學負責導讀及引導討論 
2. 
 課堂參與 
10% 
 本課程為研討性質，請踴躍提問及分享看法 
3. 
 文獻摘要 
30% 
 每週有三篇指定文獻，各篇請分別撰寫500字左右的摘要。每篇請列出一個問題，並簡述你關注該問題的原因。 
4. 
 文獻回顧期末報告 
50% 
 參見課程要求中之說明 
 
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
 3/03  Introduction / Bibliographic Control in General / Trends
基本概念回顧，任意瀏覽至少下列文獻之一：
 Chan, L. M., & Salaba, A. (2016). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (4th ed.). Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield. Chapter 1.
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.) (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 1.
 Joudrey, D. N., Taylor, A. G. (2018). The organization of information (4th ed.). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited. Chapter 1.
 Joudrey, D. N., Taylor, A. G., & Miller, D. P. (2015). Introduction to cataloging and classification (11th ed.). Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited. Chapter 1.
 Rubin, R. E. (2016). Foundations of library and information science (4th ed.). Chicago: Neal-Schuman. Chapter 6.
 Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information architecture: For the Web and beyond (4th ed.). Beijing: O’Reilly. Chapter 2 & 5. 
第2週
 3/10  Fundamental issues
 Hjorland, B. (2016). Knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 43(6), 475-484. Also available from: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization
 Shera, J. H. (1965). Foundations of a theory of bibliography. In J. H. Shera, Libraries and the organization of knowledge (pp. 18-33). London: Crosby Lockwood & Son.
 Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Chapter 2.
導讀者：沈玉涵、余致毅、陳家薇

[延伸閱讀]
 Anderson, J. D. (2003). Organization of knowledge. In J. Feather & P. Sturges (Eds.), International encyclopedia of library and information science (2nd ed.) (pp. 471-490). New York: Routledge.
 Andersen, J., & Skouvig, L. (2006). Knowledge organization: A sociohistorical analysis and critique. The Library Quarterly, 76(3), 300-322.
 Broughton, V.; Hansson, J.; Hjørland, B. & López-Huertas, M. J. (2005). Knowledge organization. In L. Kaiberg & L. Lørring (Eds.), European curriculum reflections on library and information science education (pp. 133-148). Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and Information Science. Available from: http://iva.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/KnowledgeOrg_chapter%207.pdf
 Chaudhry, A. S. (2016). Re-conceptualization of knowledge organization: Imperatives of networked resources and digitization. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 6 (2), 93-108. Retrieved from http://ijkcdt.net/xml/08905/08905.pdf
 Hjørland, B. (2003). Fundamentals of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 30(2), 87-111.
 Hjorland, B. (2008). What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization, 35(2-3), 86-101.
 Hjørland, B. (2013). Theories of knowledge organization: Theories of knowledge. Knowledge Organization, 40(3), 169-181.
 Mai, J-E. (1999). A postmodern theory of knowledge organization. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 36, 547-556. http://jenserikmai.info/Papers/1999_APostmodernTheoryOfKnowledgeOrganization.pdf
 Mazzocchi, F. (2018). Knowledge organization system (KOS). Knowledge Organization, 45(1), 54-78. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/kos
 Peponakis, M., Mastora, A., Kapidakis, S., & Doerr, M. (2019). Expressiveness and machine processability of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS): An analysis of concepts and relations. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20, 433–452  
第3週
 3/17  Core concepts
 Frické, M. (2019). The knowledge pyramid: The DIKW hierarchy. Knowledge Organization, 49 (1), 33-46. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/dikw
 Buckland, M. (2018). Document theory. Knowledge Organization, 45 (5), 425-436. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/document
 Barité, M. (2018). Literary warrant. Knowledge Organization, 45 (6), 517-536. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/literary_warrant
導讀者：洪莉婷、王昱珺、林怡岑

[延伸閱讀]
 Bates, M. J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10 (4), paper 239. Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html
 Bates, M. J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (8), 1033-45.
 Beghtol, C. (1986). Semantic validity: Concepts of warrant in bibliographic classification systems. Library Resources & Technical Services 30 (2), 109-123.
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 3, Resources in Organizing Systems.
 Jennex, M. E., & Bartczak, S. E. (2013). A revised knowledge pyramid. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (3), 19-30.
 Lund, N. W., & Skare, R. (2010). Document theory. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.) (pp. 1632-1639). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
 Rodríguez, R. D. (1984). Hulme's concept of literary warrant. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 5(1), 17-26.
 Rowley, J. E. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), 163-80. 
第4週
 3/24  Bibliographic entities / Genre
 Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chapter 3, Bibliographic entities.
 Coyle, K. (2016). FRBR before and after: A look at our bibliographic models. Chap. 1, The Work (pp. 3-28). [The author provides an e-book which is available from http://kcoyle.net/beforeAndAfter/978-0-8389-1364-2.pdf]
 Lee, H., & Zhang, L. (2013). Tracing the conceptions and treatment of genre in Anglo-American cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8), 891-912.
導讀者：吳玟萱、李宗霖、王鉦勛

[延伸閱讀]
 Dousa, T. (2017). E. Wyndham Hulme's classification of the attributes of books: On an early model of a core bibliographical entity. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 6, 21-38. Available from https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/15228/12686
 Finn, A., & Kushmerick, N. (2006). Learning to classify documents according to genre. Journal of the American Institute of Information Scientists, 57(12), 1506-1518.
 Holden, C. (2015). The definition of the work entity for pieces of recorded sound. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(8), 873-894.
 Jones, E. (2018). The evolution of the serial work, the FRBR Conceptual Model, and RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2/3), 128-145.
 Kishimoto, K., & Snyder, T. (2016). Popular music in FRBR and RDA: Toward user-friendly and cataloger-friendly identification of works. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(1), 60-86.
 Rosso, M. A. (2008). User-based identification of Web genres. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(7), 1053-1072.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2002). Further reflections on the nature of ‘a work’: An introduction. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 33 (3/4), 1-11.
 Smiraglia, R. (2003). The history of ‘the work’ in the modern catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 35(3/4), 553-567.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2019). Work. Knowledge Organization, 46(4), 308-319. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/work
 Wilson, P. (1968). The bibliographic universe. In Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographic control (pp.6-19). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
 Yee, M. M.所撰 “What is a work?” Part 1-Part 4 系列文章(分期刊載於Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, v.19-v.20) 
第5週
 3/31  FRBR
基本背景： IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: Final report. [FRBR] Munchen: K.G. Saur. The 2009 amended version is available from: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf [主要是第三章]

 Taylor, A. G. (2007). An introduction to Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). In A. G. Taylor (Ed), Understanding FRBR: What it is and how it will affect our retrieval tools (pp. 1-19). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
 Coyle, K. (2015). FRBR, twenty years on. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (3/4), 265-285.
 Žumer, M. (2018). IFLA Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM): Harmonisation of the FRBR family. Knowledge Organization, 45(4), 310-318. Also available from ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://http://www.isko.org/cyclo/lrm
導讀者：黃寶霈、高庭萱、范蔚敏

[延伸閱讀]
 Choi, Y. (2012). A practical application of FRBR for organizing information in digital environments. Knowledge Organization, 39(4), 233-254.
 Coyle, K. (2016). FRBR before and after: A look at our bibliographic models. Chap. 2, 7, &8.
 Dickey, T. J. (2008). FRBRization of a library catalog: Better collocation of records, leading to enhanced search, retrieval, and display. Information Technology & Libraries, 27(1), 23-32.
 Hider, P. (2017). A critique of the FRBR user tasks and their modifications. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(2), 55-74.
 Peponakis, M. (2012). Conceptualizations of the cataloging object: A critique on current perceptions of FRBR group 1 entities. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 587-602.
 Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 1: mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 643-667.
 Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 2: comparison task and conclusions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 668-680.
 Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2012). User verification of the FRBR conceptual model. Journal of Documentation, 68(4), 582-592.
 Riva, P., Le Bœuf, P. & Žumer, M. (2017). IFLA library reference model: A conceptual model for bibliographic Information. Chap. 5 Model overview.
 Tillett, B. B. (2003). What is FRBR? A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe. Technicalities, 25(5): 197-205. http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
 Tillett, B. B. (2009). FRBR. A presentation at ALA 2009 Annual Preconference. http://presentations.ala.org/images/b/bd/FRBR_ALA_Preconf_2009Julyrev2.ppt
 Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2009). Implementing FRBR in libraries: Key issues and future directions. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. Chapter 5.
 Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2012). What do users tell us about FRBR-based catalogs? Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 705-723.
 
第6週
 4/07  RDF / Linked data
背景資訊：
 Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001, May 17). The semantic web. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thesemantic-web.
 Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked data. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
 Briles, M. (2016). Linked data 101: Getting caught in the semantic web. Retrieved from SlideShare https://www.slideshare.net/MorganBriles/linked-data-101-getting-caught-in-the-semantic-web
這份簡報，只有短短十幾頁，但有關 linked data 的基本概念均已清楚地含括其中 （四項原則、URI與vocabulary standard、serialization等）

本週指定閱讀：
 W3C (2014). RDF 1.1 primer. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/
 Heath, T., & Bizer, C. (2011). Linked data: Evolving the Web into a global data space. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool. Chap. 1 & 2. [HTML version: http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/]
 Park, H., & Kipp, M. (2019) Library linked data models: Library data in the Semantic Web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57 (5), 261-277.
導讀者：張維庭、陳欣妤、沈玉涵

[Examples & Useful Sites]
 Library of Congress. Linked Data Services: Authorities and Vocabularies http://id.loc.gov/
 Getty Vocabularies as Linked Open Data http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/lod/
 Getty Vocabularies: LOD http://vocab.getty.edu/
 Harping, P. (2014). The Getty vocabularies and linked open data. https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/Linked_Data_Getty_Vocabularies.pdf
 OCLC Linked Data https://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
 OCLC Linked Data Research http://www.oclc.org/research/themes/data-science/linkeddata.html
 VIAF Linked Data http://viaf.org/viaf/data/

 W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/
 W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-vocabdataset-20111025/
 EUCLID Linked Data Training Modules -- http://euclid-project.eu/index.html
 Free Your Metadata: Learn how to get more value out of metadata easily. http://freeyourmetadata.org/ [由Linked Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums一書的作者現身說法，提供詳細步驟與資料，帶領學習者逐步掌握如何做]
 Linked Data: Connecting Distributed Data Across the Web (Web Site) http://linkeddata.org/home
 Linked Data. Guides and Tutorials. http://linkeddata.org/guides-and-tutorials
 UCLA Library. Semantic Web and Linked Data https://guides.library.ucla.edu/c.php?g=357266&p=2410756

[延伸閱讀]
 方凱鴻（2016）。以鏈結資料建置圖書館目錄查詢系統之研究。未出版碩士論文，臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所。[曾於2016天主教輔仁大學圖書館與資訊社會研討會發表，檢索自：http://web.lins.fju.edu.tw/conference/2016/paper/01%E4%BB%A5%E9%8F%88%E7%B5%90%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E5%BB%BA%E7%BD%AE%E5%9C%96%E6%9B%B8%E9%A4%A8%E7%B7%9A%E4%B8%8A%E5%85%AC%E7%94%A8%E7%9B%AE%E9%8C%84%E7%B3%BB%E7%B5%B1%E4%B9%8B%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6.pdf]
 曾天威（2013）。學術圖書館鏈結書目資料系統之研究。未出版碩士論文，臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所。http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22102NTU05448007%22.&searchmode=basic
 Alemu, G., Stevens, B., Ross, P., & Chandler, J. (2012). Linked data for libraries: Benefits of a conceptual shift from library-specific record structures to RDF-based data models. New Library World, 113(11-12), 549-570.
 Baker, T. (2012). Libraries, languages of description, and linked data: A Dublin Core perspective. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 116-133.
 Blaney, J. (2017). Introduction to the principles of linked open data. The Programming Historian, 6. Retrieved from https://programminghistorian.org/en/lessons/intro-to-linked-data
 Bauer, F. & Kaltenböck, M. (2012). Linked open data: The essentials. Vienna: Edition mono/monochrom.
 Bermes, E. (2013). Enabling your catalogue for the Semantic Web. In S. Chambers (Ed.), Catalogue 2.0: The future of the library catalogue (pp. 117-142). London: Facet bPublishing.
 Bianchini, C. (2012). From OPAC to library linked data: Giving new answers to users' needs. AIB Studi, 52(3), 303-323.
 Bizer, C., Heath, T., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data -- the story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 5(3), 1-22.
 Byrne, G., & Goddard, L. (2010). The strongest link: Libraries and linked data. D-Lib Magazine, 16(11-12) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/839636572?accountid=14229
 Campbell, D. G. (2011). RDA and RDF: A discourse analysis of two standards of resource description. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 3, 207-216. Available from https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/12804/11285
 Cervone, F. & Svensson, L. G. (Eds.) (2015). Linked data and user interaction: The road ahead. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
 Coyle, K. (2016). FRBR before and after: A look at our bibliographic models. Chapter 2, The technology.
 Dadzie, A.-S., & Rowe, M. (2011). Approaches to visualising linked data: A survey. Semantic Web, 1(1-2). Retrieved from https://oro.open.ac.uk/28848/1/swj118_1.pdf
 DeWeese, K. P. & Segal, D. (2015). Libraries and the semantic Web. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool. [本校訂有電子版]
 Ford, K. (2013). Library of Congress Classification as linked data. Italian Journal of Library & Information Science, 4(1), 161-175.
 Gandon, F., Krummenacher, R., Han, S.-K., & Toma, I. (2011). The Resource Description Framework and its Schema. In Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies, retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01171045/document
 Godby, C. J., Wang, S., & Mixter, J. K. (2015). Library linked data in the cloud: OCLC's experiments with new models of resource description. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool. [本校訂有電子版]
 Gonzales, B. M. (2014). Linking libraries to the Web: Linked data and the future of the bibliographic record. Information Technology & Libraries, 33(4), 10-22.
 Gray, N. (2015). RDF, the semantic web, Jordan, Jordan and Jordan. In M. Moss & B. Endicott-Popovsky (Eds.), Is digital different?: How information creation, capture, preservation and discovery are being transformed. (pp. 35-69). London: Facet Publishing.
 Guerrini, M., & Possemato, T. (2013). Linked data: A new alphabet for the semantic web. JLIS.it: Italian Journal of Library & Information Science, 4(1), 67-90. Retrieved from: http://leo.cilea.it/index.php/jlis/article/view/6305/7891
 Guerrini, M., & Possemato, T. (2016). From record management to data management: RDA and new application models BIBFRAME, RIMMF, and OliSuite/WeCat. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(3), 179-199.
 Hooland, S. V. & Verborgh, R. (2014). Linked data for libraries, archives and museums: How to clean, link and publish your metadata. London: Facet Publishing.
 Howarth, L. C. (2012). FRBR and linked data: Connecting FRBR and linked data. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 763-776.
 Lindquist, T., Dulock, M., Törnroos, J., Hyvönen, E., & Mäkelä, E. (2013). Using linked open data to enhance subject access in online primary sources. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8), 913-928.
 Marjit, U., Sharma, K., Sarkar, A., & Krishnamurthy, M. (2013). Publishing legacy data as linked data: A state of the art survey. Library Hi Tech, 31(3), 520-535.
 Meehan, T. (2014). Introduction to linked data. Catalogue & Index, 174, 2-12.
 Mitchell, E. T. (2013a). Building blocks of linked open data in libraries. Library Technology Reports, 49(5), 11-25.
 Mitchell, E. T. (2013b). Library linked data: Research and adoption. Library Technology Reports, 50(5), 1-50.
 Mitchell, E. T. (2016). Library linked data: Early activity and development. Library Technology Reports, 52(1), 5-33.
 Powell, J., & Hopkins, M. (2015). A librarian’s guide to graphs, data and the semantic web. Waltham, MA: Chandos. Chapter 4, RDF and its serialization.
 Sikos L.F. (2015). Mastering structured data on the semantic web. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
 Wood, D., Zaidman, M., & Ruth, L. (2014). Linked data: Structured data on the Web. Shelter Island: Manning.
 Yoose, B., & Perkins, J. (2013). The linked open data landscape in libraries and beyond. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(2-3), 197-211.  
第7週
 4/14  Cataloging rules / Resource descriptions
 Clarke, R. I. (2015). Breaking records: The history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (3/4), 286-302.
 Bernstein, S. (2014). Beyond content, media, and carrier: RDA carrier characteristics. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(5), 463-486.
 Coyle, K. (2010). RDA vocabularies for a twenty-first-century data environment. Library Technology Reports, 46(2), 5-39.
導讀者：余致毅、陳家薇、洪莉婷

[延伸閱讀]
 Bianchini, C., & Guerrini, M. (2009). From bibliographic models to cataloging rules: Remarks on FRBR, ICP, ISBD, and RDA and the relationships between them. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 47(2), 105-124.
 Biswas, S. (2015). Reflections of Ranganathan's normative principles of cataloging in RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(8), 948-963.
 Campbell, D. G. (2011). RDA and RDF: A discourse analysis of two standards of resource description. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 3, 207-216. Available from https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/12804/11285
 Caudle, D. M., & Schmitz, C. (2014). Keep it simple: Using RDA’s content, media, and carrier type fields to simplify format display issues. Journal of Library Metadata, 14(3/4), 222-238.
 Fell, T., & Lapka, F. (2016). ISBD and DCRM into RDA: An opportunity for convergence? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(5-6), 282-291.
 Green, R., & Fallgren, N. (2007). Anticipating new media: A faceted classification of material types. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 1, 87-99. Available from https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/nasko/article/view/12837/11318
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 4, Resources Description and Metadata.
 Hider, P. (2009). A comparison between the RDA taxonomies and end-user categorizations of content and carrier. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47 (6), 544-560.
 Hider, P. & Liu, Y.-H. (2013). The use of RDA elements in support of FRBR user tasks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51 (8), 857-872.
 Hillmann, D., Coyle, K., Phipps, J., & Dunsire, G. (2010). RDA vocabularies: Process, outcome, use. D-Lib Magazine, 16(1/2). Retrieved from: http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html
 Hitchens, A. & Symons, E. (2009). Preparing catalogers for RDA training. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47 (8), 691-707.
 Howarth, L. C., & Weihs, J. (2007). Making the link: AACR to RDA. Part 1: Setting the stage. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 45(2), 3-18.
 Intner, S. S. (2008). RDA: Progress or problem?. Technicalities, 28(4), 1-15.
 Lisius, P. H. (2015). AACR2 to RDA: Is knowledge of both needed during the transition period? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (1), 40-70.
 McCallum, C., Gilbertson, K., Kelley, S., & Corbett, L. E. (2017). Can RDA content, media, and carrier coding improve discovery facet mapping? Library Resources & Technical Services, 61(2), 93-101.
 Maurer, M. B., & Panchyshyn, R. S. (2014). Understanding the why: A case study in managing the RDA implementation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(3), 259-284.
 Miksa, S. D. (2009). Resource Description and Access (RDA) and new research potentials. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 35(5), 47-51. Retrieved from: http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-09/JunJul09_Miksa.pdf
 Osborn, A. D. (1985). The crisis in cataloging. Library Quarterly, 11(4), 393-411. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/inside/units/bibcontrol/osmc/crisis.pdf or http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4302882.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
 Ou, C., & Saxon, S. (2014. Displaying content, media, and carrier types in the OPAC: Questions and considerations. Journal of Library Metadata, 14(3/4), 239-254.
 Riva, P., & Oliver, C. (2012). Evaluation of RDA as an implementation of FRBR and FRAD. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50 (5-7), 564-586.
 Taniguchi, S. (2015). Modeling resource description tasks in RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(1), 88-111.
 Tillett, B. (2013). RDA and the semantic web, linked data environment. JLIS.it, 4 (1), 139-144. Retrieved from https://www.jlis.it/article/view/6303/7876  
第8週
 4/21  Next-Generation Catalogs / Discovery Services / Metadata Quality
[繳交期末報告題目概述]

 Majors, R. (2012). Comparative user experiences of next-generation catalogue interfaces. Library Trends, 61(1), 186-207.
 Breeding, M. (2014). Discovery product functionality. Library Technology Reports, 50(1), 5-32.
 Schultz-Jones, B., Snow, K., Miksa, S., & Hasenyager Jr., R. L. (2012). Historical and current implications of cataloguing quality for next-generation catalogues. Library Trends, 61(1), 49-82.
導讀者：王昱珺、吳玟萱、李宗霖

[延伸閱讀]
 Library of Congress, Bibliographic Enrichment Advisory Team (BEAT) http://www.loc.gov/catdir/beat/ (請瀏覽該團隊所主導之各項計畫)
 Calhoun, K. (2006). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tool. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf
 Mann, T. (2008). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Final report: March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun. A critical review, Journal of Library Metadata, 8(2), 169-197. [回應Calhoun的討論]
 The University of California Libraries. Bibliographic Services Task Force. (2005). Rethinking how we provide bibliographic services for the University of California. Retrieved from http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf

 Breeding, M. (2007). Next-generation library catalogs. Library Technology Reports, 43(4), 5-42.
 Breeding, M. (2013). Next-generation discovery: An overview of the European scene. In S. Chambers (Ed.), Catalogue 2.0: The future of the library catalogue (pp. 37-64). London: Facet Publishing.
 Breeding, M. (2018). Index-based discovery services: Current market positions and trends. Library Technology Reports, 54(8), 1-33.
 Chickering, F. M., & Yang, S. Q. (2014). Evaluation and comparison of discovery tools: An update. Information Technology & Libraries, 33(2), 5-30.
 Dempsey, L. (2012). Thirteen ways of looking at libraries, discovery, and the catalog: Scale, workflow, attention. Educause Review Online, Available from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/thirteen-ways-looking-libraries-discovery-and-catalog-scale-workflow-attention
 Gallaway, T. O., & Hines, M. F. (2012). Competitive usability and the catalogue: A process for justification and selection of a next-generation catalogue or Web-scale discovery system. Library Trends, 61(1), 173-185.
 Johnson, F. C., & Craven, J. (2010). Beyond usability: The study of functionality of the 2.0 online catalogue (OPAC). New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(2), 228-250.
 Markey, K. (2007). The online library catalog: Paradise lost and paradise regained? D-Lib Magazine, 13(1/2). Retrieved from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/markey/01markey.html
 Naun, C. C. (2010). Next generation OPACs: A cataloging viewpoint. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(4), 330-342.
 Osborne, H. M., & Cox, A. A. (2015). An investigation into the perceptions of academic librarians and students towards next-generation OPACs and their features. Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems, 49(1), 23-45.
 Tarulli, L., & Spiteri, L. F. (2012). Library catalogues of the future: A social space and collaborative tool? Library Trends, 61(1), 107-131.
 Wynne, S. C., & Hanscom, M. J. (2011). The effect of next-generation catalogs on catalogers and cataloging functions in academic libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49(3), 179-207.
 Yang, S. Q., & Hofmann, M. A. (2011). Next generation or current generation? A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the USA and Canada. Library Hi Tech, 29(2), 266-300.

[Metadata Quality]
 Hoffman, G. L. (2009). Meeting users’ needs in cataloging: What is the right thing to do? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47 (7), 631-641.
 Petrucciani, A. (2015). Quality of library catalogs and value of (good) catalogs. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (3/4), 303-313.
 Snow, K. (2017). Defining, assessing, and rethinking quality cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55 (7/8), 438-455.
 Tallerås, K. (2017). Quality of linked bibliographic data: The models, vocabularies, and links of data sets published by four national libraries. Journal of Library Metadata, 17(2), 126-155.
 Van Kleeck, D., et al. (2017). Managing bibliographic data quality for electronic resources. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55 (7/8), 560-577.
 Yasser, C. M. (2011). An analysis of problems in metadata records. Journal of Library Metadata, 11 (2), 51-62. 
第9週
 4/28  Bibliographic relationships / Catalog Use

 Tillett, B. B. (2001). Bibliographic relationships. In C. A. Bean, & R. Green (Eds), Relationships in the organization of knowledge (pp. 19-35). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Wallheim, H. (2016). From complex reality to formal description: Bibliographic relationships and problems of operationalization in RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(7), 483-503.
 Wilson, V. (2015). Catalog users “in the wild”: The potential of an ethnographic approach to studies of library catalogs and their users. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(2), 190-213.
導讀者：王鉦勛、黃寶霈、高庭萱

[延伸閱讀]
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 5, Describing Relationship and structure.
 Green, R. (2001). Relationships in the organization of knowledge: An overview. In C. A. Bean, & R. Green (Eds), Relationships in the organization of knowledge (pp. 3-18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Mazzocchi, F., Tiberi, M., De Santis, B., & Plini, P. (2007). Relational semantics in thesauri: Some remarks at theoretical and practical levels. Knowledge Organization, 34(4), 197-214.
 Niu, J. (2013). Hierarchical relationships in the bibliographic universe. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(5), 473-490.
 Park, T. K. & Morrison, A. M. (2017). The nature and characteristics of bibliographic relationships in RDA cataloging records in OCLC at the beginning of RDA implementation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55 (6), 361-386.
 Picco, P., & Ortiz Repiso, V. (2012). The contribution of FRBR to the identification of bibliographic relationships: The new RDA-based ways of representing relationships in catalogs. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 622-640.
 Riva, P. (2004). Mapping MARC21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett’s taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources and Technical Services, 48(2), 130-143.
 Smiraglia, R. P., & Leazer, G. H. (1999). Derivative bibliographic relationships: The work relationship in a global bibliographic database. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(6), 493-504.
 Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chapter 9, Subject Language: Referential and Relational Semantics.
 Szostak, R. (2012a). Toward a classification of relationships. Knowledge Organization, 39(2), 83-94.
 Szostak, R. (2012b). Classifying relationships. Knowledge Organization, 39(3), 165-178.
 Tillett, B. B. (1991). A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources & Technical Services, 35, 150-158.
 Tillett, B. B. (1992). The history of linking devices. Library Resources & Technical Services, 36, 23-36.
 Vellucci, S. L. (1990). Uniform titles as linking devices. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 12(1), 35-62.
 Vellucci, S. L. (1998). Bibliographic relationships. In J. Weihs (Ed.), The principles and future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23-25, 1997 (pp. 105-146). Ottawa: Canadian Library Association; Chicago: American Library Association.

[Catalog Use]
 Allen, B. L. (1991). Topic knowledge and online catalog search formulation. Library Quarterly, 61, 188-213.
 Borgman, C. L. (1996). Why are online catalogs still hard to use?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(7): 493-503.
 Mann, T. (1997). 'Cataloging must change!' and indexer consistency studies: Misreading the evidence at our peril. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 23(3/4), 3-45.
 Markey, K. (2007) Twenty-five years of end-user searching, Part 1: research findings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (8), 1071-1081. Part 2: Future research directions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (8), 1123-1130.
 Novotny, E. (2004). I don't think I click: A protocol analysis study of use of a library online catalog in the Internet age. College & Research Libraries, 65(6), 525-537.
 Petrucciani, A. (2015). Quality of library catalogs and value of (good) catalogs. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53 (3/4), 303-313.
 Schneider, K. G. (2006). “How OPACs suck, Part 1: Relevance rand (Or the lack of it).” Available online: http://www.ala.org/tools/article/ala-techsource/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-lack-it
 Schneider, K. G. (2006). “How OPACs suck, Part 2: The checklist of shame. Available online: http://www.ala.org/tools/article/ala-techsource/how-opacs-suck-part-2-checklist-shame
 Schneider, K. G. (2006). “How OPACs suck, Part 3: The big picture. Available online: http://www.ala.org/tools/article/ala-techsource/how-opacs-suck-part-3-big-picture
 Waller, V. (2010). Accessing the collection of a large public library: An analysis of OPAC use. LIBRES: Library & Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 20(1), 1-27.
 Wilson, R., & Given, L. M. (2010). The effect of spelling and retrieval system familiarity on search behavior in online public access catalogs: A mixed methods study. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 61(12), 2461-2476. 
第10週
 5/05  Subject analysis--Classification
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2016). The discipline of organizing (Core concept edition) (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 7, Categorization: Describing Resource Classes and Types. Retrieved from https://ischools.org/resources/Documents/Discipline%20of%20organizing/Core%20Concepts/TDO4-Core-CC-Chapter7.pdf
 Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information architecture for the Web and beyond. Beijing: O’Reilly. Chapter 6, Organization Systems (pp. 97-131).
 Dousa, T. M. (2018). Library classification. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/library_classification
導讀者：范蔚敏、張維庭、陳欣妤

[延伸閱讀]
 Beghtol, C. 1. (1986). Bibliographic classification theory and text linguistics: Aboutness analysis, intertextuality and the cognitive act of classifying documents. Journal of Documentation, 42, 84-113.
 Beghtol, C. (1998). Knowledge domains: Multidisciplinarity and bibliographic classification systems. Knowledge Organization, 25(1/2), 1-12.
 Desale, S. K., & Kumbhar, R. M. (2013). Research on automatic classification of documents in library environment: A literature review. Knowledge Organization. 40(5), 295-304.
 Frické, M. (2013). Reflections on classification: Thomas Reid and bibliographic description. Journal of Documentation, 69(4), 507-522.
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 6, Categorization: Describing Resource Classes and Types.
 Glushko, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). The discipline of organizing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 7, Classification: Assigning Resources to Categories.
 Hjørland, B. (2017). Classification. Knowledge Organization, 44 (2), 97-128. Also available from: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/classification [有關各家對分類的定義，瀏覽即可]
 Kwasnik, B. (1999). The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22-47.
 Olson, H. A. (2009). Social influences on classification. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044536
 Saarti, J. (2019). Fictional literature, classification and indexing. Knowledge Organization, 46 (4), 320-332. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/fictional
 Shera, J. H. (1965). Classification as the basis of bibliographic organization. In Libraries and the organization of knowledge (pp. 77-96). London: Crosby Lockwook & Son.
 Smiraglia, R. P., & den Heuvel, C. V. (2013). Classifications and concepts: Towards an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 360-383.
 Svenonius, E. (1992). Classification: Prospects, problems and possibilities. In N. J. Williamson, & M. Hudon (Eds.), Classification research for knowledge representation and organization (pp. 5-25). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 Tennis, J. T. (2005). Experientialist epistemology and classification theory: Embodied and dimensional classification. Knowledge Organization, 32(2), 79-92.
 Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M. (2019). Towards a diversified knowledge organization system: An open network of inter-linked subsystems with multiple validity scopes. Journal of Documentation, 75 (5), 1124-1138.  
第11週
 5/12  Facet / Faceted classification
 Hudon, M. (2019). Facet. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/facet
 La Barre, K. (2010). Facet analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 243-284.
 Broughton, V. (2013). Faceted classification as a general theory for knowledge organization. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 50(6), 735-750.
導讀者：沈玉涵、余致毅、陳家薇

[延伸閱讀]
 Broughton, V. (2006). The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval. Aslib Proceedings, 58(1/2), 49-72.
 Broughton, V. (2008). A faceted classification as the basis of a faceted terminology: Conversion of a classified structure to thesaurus format in the Bliss Bibliographic Classification, 2nd edition. Axiomathes, 18(2), 193–210.
 Broughton, V. (2013). Faceted classification as a general theory for knowledge organization. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 50(6), 735-750.
 Broughton, V., & Slavic, A. (2007). Building a faceted classification for the humanities: Principles and procedures. Journal of Documentation, 63(5), 727-754.
 Gnoli, C., & Hong, M. (2006). Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia, 12 (1), 63-81
 Hjørland, B. (2013). Facet analysis: The logical approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing and Management, 49(2), 545–57. Also available online from IEKO: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/facet_analysis
 Ellis, D., & Vasconcelos, A. (2000). The relevance of facet analysis for World Wide Web subject organization and searching. Journal of Internet Cataloging, 2(3/4), 96-114.
 La Barre, K. (2006) The use of faceted analytico-synthetic theory in the practice of website construction and design. Unpublished dissertation. Indiana University. Retrieved from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/klabarre/www/LaBarre_FAST.pdf
 Lee, J. H., Karlova, N., Clarke, R. I., Thornton, K., & Perti, A. (2014). Facet analysis of video game genres. iConference 2014 Proceedings, 125-139. Available from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/47323/057_ready.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
 Mills, J. (2004). Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval. Library Trends, 52(3): 541-70.
 Spiteri, L. F. (1997). The use of facet analysis in information retrieval thesauri: An examination of selected guidelines for thesaurus construction. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 25(1), 21-37.
 Spiteri, L. (1998). A simplified model for facet analysis. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 23, 1-30.
 Star, S. L. (1998) Grounded classification: Grounded theory and faceted classification. Library trends, 47(2): 218-232.
 Varghese, M. (2008). Relevance of a classified catalog in the FRBR perspective and a proposed model with ISBD Description and Faceted Class Number as key attribute. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 46(3), 281-304.
 Vickery, B.C. (2008). Faceted classification for the web. Axiomathes, 18(2): 145-160. 
第12週
 5/19  Subject analysis--Verbal / Aboutness
請瀏覽：
 MeSH Browser -- http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/2007/MBrowser.html
 Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) -- http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/umlsmain.html http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/pdf/UMLS_Basics.pdf
 Weinberg, B. H. (1988). Why indexing fails the researcher. The Indexer, 16(1): 3-6.

本週指定閱讀：
 Rondeau, S. (2014). The life and times of aboutness: A review of the library and information science literature. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(1). Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/19091/16224
 Martínez-Ávila, D. & Budd, J. M. (2017). Epistemic warrant for categorizational activities and the development of controlled vocabularies. Journal of Documentation, 73 (4), 700-715.
 Harper, C. A. & Tillett, B. B. (2007). Library of Congress controlled vocabularies and their application to the Semantic Web. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 43 (3/4), 47-68.
導讀者：洪莉婷、王昱珺、李宗霖

[延伸閱讀]
 Delsey, T. (2005). Modeling subject access: Extending the FRBR and FRANAR conceptual models. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 39(3/4), 49-61.
 Gross, T., Taylor, A. G., & Joudrey, D. N. (2015). Still a lot to lose: The role of controlled vocabulary in keyword searching. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(1), 1-39.
 Harpring, P. (2010). Introduction to controlled vocabularies: Terminology for art, architecture, and other cultural works (online edition). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Chap. 2, What are controlled vocabularies? Available from: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intro_controlled_vocab/what.pdf
 Harpring, P. (2010). Introduction to controlled vocabularies: Terminology for art, architecture, and other cultural works (online edition). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Chap. 3, Relationships in controlled vocabularies. Available from: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intro_controlled_vocab/relationships.pdf
 Hjorland, B. (2001). Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(9), 774-778.
 Jin, Q. (2008). Is FAST the right direction for a new system of subject cataloging and metadata? Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 45(3), 91-110.
 Joudrey, D. N. (2005). Building puzzles and growing pearls: A qualitative exploration of determining aboutness. Unpublished dissertation, School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. Chap. 2.2, The nature of aboutness (pp.53-69). [可由數位論文典藏聯盟取得此篇博士論文]Marradi, A. (2012). The concept of concept: Concepts and terms. Knowledge Organization, 39(1), 29-54.
 Marshall, L. (2003). Specific and generic subject headings: Increasing subject access to library materials. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 36(2), 59-87.

 Maurer, M. B., & Shakeri, S. (2016). Disciplinary differences: LCSH and keyword assignment for ETDs from different disciplines. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(4), 213-243.
 O’Neill, E. T., Bennett, R., & Kammerer, K. (2014). Using authorities to improve subject searches. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(1), 6-19.
 O'Neill, E. T., Kammerer, K. A., & Bennett, R. (2017). The aboutness of words. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10), 2471-2483.
 Shatford, S. (1986). Analyzing the subject of a picture: A theoretical approach. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 6(3), 39-62.
 Svenonius, E. (1986). Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 331-340.
 Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chapter 8, Subject Language: Introduction, Vocabulary Selection, and Classification. 
第13週
 5/26  Folksonomies / Social Tagging
瀏覽：
 吳筱玫（2009）。俗民分類與知識型：Tag的資訊秩序,。中華傳播學刊, 15, 頁3-31。 Available from http://cjc.nccu.edu.tw/word/283312142013.pdf
 吳筱玫、周芷伊（2009）。Taggging的分類與知識意涵：以flickr首頁圖片為例。新聞學研究，No.99，頁265-305。Available from http://mcr.nccu.edu.tw/word/1234302013.pdf

本週指定閱讀文獻：
 Conradi, E. (2009). To_be_classified: A facet analysis of a folksonomy. Available from: https://oda-hioa.archive.knowledgearc.net/bitstream/handle/10642/313/Conradi_Elise.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
 Rafferty, P. (2018). Tagging. Knowledge Organization, 45 (6), 500-516. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/tagging
 Gerolimos, M. (2013). Tagging for libraries: A review of the effectiveness of tagging systems for library catalogs. Journal of Library Metadata, 13 (1), 36-58.
導讀者：王鉦勛、黃寶霈、高庭萱

[延伸閱讀]
 Blokdyk, G. (2017). Folksonomies social tagging: A clear and comprehensive guide. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. [訂購中]
 Bullard, J. (2018). Curated folksonomies: Three implementations of structure through human judgment. Knowledge Organization, 45(8), 643-652.
 Gruber, T. (2005). Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. Retrieved from http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm
 Kipp, M. I., & Campbell, D. G. (2010). Searching with tags: Do tags help users find things? Knowledge Organization, 37(4), 239-255.
 MacGregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organization and resource discovery tool. Library View, 55(5), 291-300.
 Munk, T. B., & Mørk, K. (2007). Folksonomy, The power law & the significance of the least effort. Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-33.
 Spiteri, L. F. (2006). The use of folksonomies in public library catalogues. The Serials Librarian, 51 (2), 75-89.
 Spiteri, L. F. (2010). Incorporating facets into social tagging applications: An analysis of current trends. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(1), 94-109.
 Trant, J. (2009). Studying social tagging and folksonomy: A review and framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105375
 Windleharth, T. W., Jett, J., Schmalz, M., & Lee, J. H. (2016). Full steam ahead: A conceptual analysis of user-supplied tags on steam. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(7), 418-441.
 Yi, K., & Chan, L. M. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: An exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.
 
第14週
 6/02  Encoding schema / BIBFRAME / Interoperability

 Schreur, P. (2018). The evolution of BIBFRAME: From MARC surrogate to Web conformant data model. Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2018 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://library.ifla.org/2202/1/141-schreur-en.pdf
 [同時參考A brief introduction to BIBFRAME 2.0 by Kelley McGrath http://nwcentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/McGrath_Bibframe_OLA_2017.pdf]
 Xu, A., Hess, K., & Akerman, L. (2018). From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0: Crosswalks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2/3), 224-250.
 Zeng, M. L. (2019). Interoperability. Knowledge Organization, 46(2), 122-146. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, http://www.isko.org/cyclo/interoperability
導讀者：范蔚敏、張維庭、陳欣妤

[延伸閱讀]
 BIBFRAME Training at the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/bibframe/
 Cole, T. W., Han, M.-J., Weathers, W. F., & Joyner, E. (2013). Library MARC records into linked open data: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(2/3), 163-196.
 Kroeger, A. (2013). The road to BIBFRAME: The evolution of the idea of bibliographic transition into a post-MARC future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8), 873-890.
 Library of Congress. Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division. (2019). Library of Congress BIBFRAME manual. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibframe/BIBFRAME-Manual-Final-2019-07-12.pdf
 Miller, E., Ogbuji, U., Mueller, V., & MacDougall, K. (2012). Bibliographic framework as a web of data: Linked data model and supporting services. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Available from https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
 McCallum, S. (2017). BIBFRAME development. JLIS.it, 8(3), 71–85. Available from https://www.jlis.it/article/view/12415/11282
 Sprochi, A. (2016). Where are we headed?: Resource description and access, bibliographic framework, and the functional requirements for bibliographic records library reference model. International Information & Library Review, 48(2), 129-136.
 Taniguchi, S. (2017). Examining BIBFRAME 2.0 from the viewpoint of RDA metadata schema. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(6), 387-412.
 Taniguchi, S. (2018a). Is BIBFRAME 2.0 a suitable schema for exchanging and sharing diverse descriptive metadata about bibliographic resources? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(1), 40-61.
 Taniguchi, S. (2018b). Mapping and merging of IFLA Library Reference Model and BIBFRAME 2.0. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(5/6), 427-454.
 Zapounidou, S., Sfakakis, M., & Papatheodorou, C. (2016). Representing and integrating bibliographic information into the Semantic Web: A comparison of four conceptual models. Journal of Information Science. 43(4): 525–553.

[Interoperability]
 Chan, L. M., & Zeng, M. L. (2006). Metadata interoperability and standardization - A study of methodology, Part I: Achieving interoperability at the schema level. D-Lib Magazine, 12(6). Retrieved online: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/chan/06chan.html
 Binding, C., & Tudhope, D. (2010). Terminology Web services. Knowledge Organization, 37(4), 287-298.
 Guenther, R. S. (2003). MODS: The Metadata Object Description Schema. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 3(1), 137-150.
 McCulloch, E., & Macgregor, G. (2008). Analysis of equivalence mapping for terminology services. Journal of Information Science, 34(1), 70-92.
 Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and collections: Schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(3), 104-116.
 Will, L. (2012). The ISO 25964 data model for the structure of an information retrieval thesaurus. In: Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization. Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference, 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India (pp. 284-290). Würzburg: Ergon. Available at: http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/Will_ISKO2012_paper.doc
 Willer, M., & Dunsire, G. (2014). ISBD, the UNIMARC bibliographic format, and RDA: Interoperability issues in namespaces and the linked data environment. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(8), 888-913.
 Zeng, M. L. & Chan, L. M. (2004). Trends and issues in establishing interoperability among knowledge organization systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(5), 377-395.
 Zeng, M. L., & Chan, L. M. (2006). Metadata interoperability and standardization - A study of methodology Part II: Achieving interoperability at the record and repository levels. D-Lib Magazine, 12(6). Retrieved from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june06/zeng/06zeng.html
 Zeng, M. L., & Chan, L. M. (2009). Semantic interoperability. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition (pp. 4645-4662). New York: Taylor and Francis. To link to this chapter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043711 
第15週
 6/09  Authority control / Identity management
 Zhu, L. (2019). The future of authority control: Issues and trends in the linked data environment. Journal of Library Metadata, 19(3/4), 215-238.
 Downey, M. (2019). Assessing author identifiers: Preparing for a linked data approach to name authority control in an institutional repository context. Journal of Library Metadata, 19 (1/2), 117-136.
 Stalberg, E., et al. (in press). Exploring models for shared identity management at a global scale: The work of the PCC Task Group on Identity Management in NACO. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1699880
導讀者：沈玉涵、余致毅、陳家薇

[延伸閱讀]
 Armitage, A., Cuneo, M. J., Quintana, I., & Carlson Young, K. (2020). ISNI and traditional authority work. JLIS.it, 11(1), 151–163. Retrieved from https://www.jlis.it/article/view/12554/11378
 Billey, A. (2019). Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should: An argument for simplicity and data privacy with name authority work in the linked data environment. Journal of Library Metadata, 19 (1/2), 1-17.
 Cannan, J. P., Frank, P., & Hawkins, L. (2019). LC/NACO authority file in the Library of Congress BIBFRAME Pilots. Journal of Library Metadata, 19 (1/2), 39-51.
 French, R. B., & Fagan, J. C. (2019). The visibility of authority records, researcher identifiers, academic social networking profiles, and related faculty publications in search engine results. Journal of Web Librarianship, 13(2), 156-197. Retrieved from https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/letfspubs/148
 Jin, Q., & Kudeki, D. (2019). Identity and access management for libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 36 (1), 44-60.
 MacEwan, A., Angjeli, A., & Gatenby, J. (2013). The International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI): The evolving future of name authority control. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51 (1-3), 55-71.
 Niu, J. (2013). Evolving landscape in name authority control. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51 (4), 404-419.
 Powell, J., Hoover, C., Gordon, A., & Mittrach, M. (2019), Bridging identity challenges: Why and how one library plugged ORCiD into their enterprise. Library Hi Tech, 37 (3), 625-639.
 Rotenberg, E., & Kushmerick, A. (2011). The author challenge: Identification of self in the scholarly literature. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49 (6), 503-520.
 Sandberg, J., & Jin, Q. (2016). How should catalogers provide authority control for journal article authors? Name identifiers in the linked data world. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54 (8), 537-552.
 Thompson, K. J. (2016). More than a name: A content analysis of name authority records for authors who self-identify as trans. Library Resources & Technical Services, 60 (3), 140-155.  
第16週
 6/16  Domain analysis / Class presentation
 Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches — traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58 (4), 422-462.
導讀者：
[延伸閱讀]
 Hjørland, B. (2016). Domain analysis. Knowledge Organization 44, no. 6: 436-464. Also available from: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/domain_analysis
 López-Huertas, M. J. (2015). Domain analysis for interdisciplinary knowledge domains. Knowledge Organization, 42 (8), 570-580.
 Mai, J.-E. (2005). Analysis in indexing: Document and domain centered approaches. Information processing and management, 41, 599-611.
 Ørom, A. (2003). Knowledge organization in the domain of art studies: History, transition and conceptual changes. Knowledge Organization, 30 (3/4), 128-143. [此文常被作為model分析，其中涉及藝術圖像領域]
 Roos, A. & Hedlund, T. (2016). Using the domain analytical approach in the study of information practices in biomedicine. Journal of Documentation, 72 (5), 961-986.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2012). Epistemology of domain analysis. In R. P. Smiraglia & H.-L. Lee (Eds.), Cultural frames of knowledge (pp. 111-124). Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2015). Domain analysis as a methodological paradigm in knowledge organization. In Domain analysis for knowledge organization: Tools for ontology extraction (pp.19-39). Waltham, MA: Chandos Publishing.
 Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & Lopez-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Chap. 3, The Nature of Knowledge Organization Systems to Serve Interdisciplinarity.
 Tennis, J. T. (2003). Two axes of domains for domain analysis. Knowledge Organization, 30 (3-4), 191-195.
 Tennis, J. T. (2012). What does a domain analysis look like in form, function, and genre? Brazilian Journal of Information Science, 6 (1), 3-14. Available from: http://www2.marilia.unesp.br/revistas/index.php/bjis/article/view/3026/2300  
第17週
 6/23  Class presentation

報告順序：李宗霖、高庭萱、陳欣妤、王昱珺、張維庭、洪莉婷 
第18週
 6/30  Class presentation

報告順序：余致毅、黃寶霈、王鉦勛、陳家薇、范蔚敏、沈玉涵 
第19週
   [補充資料]
Cataloging Professionals
 瀏覽ALCTS Cataloging Competencies Task Force (2017). Core Competencies for Cataloging and Metadata Professional Librarians. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/7853/Core%20Competencies%20Cataloging%20Metadata%20Professional.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 Boydston, J. M. K., & Leysen, J. M. (2014). ARL cataloger librarian roles and responsibilities now and in the future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52 (2), 229-250.
 Hsieh-Yee, I. (2008). Educating cataloging professionals in a changing information environment. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 49(2), 93-106.
 Joudrey, D. N., & McGinnis, R. (2014). Graduate education for information organization, cataloging, and metadata. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52 (5), 506-550.
 Park, J., Tosaka, Y., Maszaros, S., & Lu, C. (2010). From metadata creation to metadata quality control: Continuing education needs among cataloging and metadata professionals. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 51(3), 158-176.
 Park, J.-R., Lu, C., & Marion, L. (2009). Cataloging professionals in the digital environment: A content analysis of job descriptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 844-857.
 Terrill, L. J. (2016). The state of cataloging research: An analysis of peer-reviewed journal literature, 2010–2014. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(8), 593-611.

 Clarke, R. I. (2018). Cataloging research by design: A taxonomic approach to understanding research questions in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(8), 683-701.
 Terrill, L. J. (2016). The state of cataloging research: An analysis of peer reviewed journal literature, 2010–2014. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54 (8), 593-611.

Ethical Issues
 Beghtol, C. (2002). A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems. Journal of Documentation, 58(5), 507-532.
 Beghtol, C. (2008). Professional values and ethics in knowledge organization and cataloging. Journal of Information Ethics, 17(1), 12-19.
 Bair, S. (2005). Toward a code of ethics for cataloging. Technical Services Quarterly, 23(1), 13-26.
 Diao, J., & Cao, H. (2016). Chronology in cataloging Chinese archaeological reports: An investigation of cultural bias in the Library of Congress Classification. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(4), 244-262.
 Ferris, A. M. (2008). The ethics and integrity of cataloging. Journal of Library Administration, 47(3/4), 173-190.
 Fox, M. J., & Reece, A. (2012). Which ethics? whose morality?: An analysis of ethical standards for information organization. Knowledge Organization, 39(5), 377-383.
 Olson, H. A., & Schlege, R. (2001). Standardization, objectivity, and user Focus: A meta-analysis of subject access critiques. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 32(2), 61-80.
 Ridi, R. (2013). Ethical values for knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 40(3), 187-196.
 Smiraglia, R. P. (2009). Bibliocentrism, cultural warrant, and the ethics of resource description: A case study. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(7), 671-686.
 Snow, K. (2015). An examination of the practical and ethical issues surrounding false memoirs in cataloging practice. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(8), 927-947.