SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
Scribd wird den Betrieb von SlideShare ab 1. Dezember 2020 übernehmen.Ab diesem Zeitpunkt liegt die Verwaltung Ihres SlideShare-Kontos sowie jeglicher Ihrer Inhalte auf SlideShare bei Scribd. Von diesem Datum an gelten die allgemeinen Nutzungsbedingungen und die Datenschutzrichtlinie von Scribd. Wenn Sie dies nicht wünschen, schließen Sie bitte Ihr SlideShare-Konto. Mehr erfahren
Indigenous Knowledge Organization
INFO 653-01: FA19
Instructor: Dr. Cristina Pattueli
Andreas Jonathan, Nicole Marconi, GabrielPalisano
1.Doyle, A. M., Lawson, K., &Dupont, S. (2015). Indigenization of Knowledge Organization at the Xwi7xwa Library (University of British Columbia). https://doi.
2.Montenegro, M. Subverting the universality of metadata standards: The TK labels as a tool to promote Indigenous data sovereignty | Emerald Insight. (n.d.). Retrieved
December 1, 2019, from https://www-emerald-com.ezproxy.pratt.edu/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-08-2018-0124/full/html
3.Knight, F.T.(2019). Words and Worldviews: Decolonizing Description. Librarian Publications &Presentations. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.
4.Cherry, A., &Mukunda, K. (2015). A Case Study in Indigenous Classification: Revisiting and Reviving the Brian Deer Scheme. Cataloging &Classification Quarterly,
53(5–6), 548–567. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1008717
5.Duarte, M. e. ( 1 ), &Belarde-Lewis, M. ( 2 ). (2015). Imagining: Creating spaces for indigenous ontologies. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 53(5–6), 677–702.
Img 1. UBC Library Communications and Marketing. (2018). 29826553797_d7ba9f21f7_b.jpg [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ubcli-
Img 2. Local Contexts (2012). Screenshot of Local Contexts Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels Website [Screenshot]. Retrieved from https://localcontexts.org/tk-labels/
Img 3. Artists Space (2016). Decolonize This Place Sticker [Image]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/artistsspace/status/776789050313310209
colonialism that sought to reduce entire
communities to call numbers. It is a system
principally concerned with providinglegible
access to indigenous information materials
and artifacts for the benefit of indigenous
Our project sought to centralize the
voices and efforts of indigenous catalogers
while contextualizing their efforts within
a broader history of exploitation and
theft. We explore the background that
necessitates these radical developments
in cataloging while highlighting the
work that is being done by information
professionals to create new systems,
vocabularies, and ontologies within formal
library institutions. Discussion includes
how these schema not only restructure
our previous understanding of history, but
also contribute to the repatriation of stolen
artifacts. and the education of underserved
Many collections - from their contents
to the nature of their organization -
are built upon the foundation of 19th
and 20th century field guides that
conceptualized indigenous objects
and knowledge as resources for
extraction and research.
the Musqueam and Squamish,
Salish Nations including
The Xwei7wa Library is an
Aboriginal Library and House of
Knowledge, and member of the
University of British Columbia
Library system. Located on the
unceded territory of Coast
“[Decolonizing Description] doesn’t change the
underlying problem with a system that does not reflect
indigenous worldviews...[Indigenous worldviews] are
focused less on the boundaries between concepts and
more on an awareness of the connections between all
- F.Tim Knight3
The Brian Deer Classification System
is an an IKO system developed in the
1970s by Kahnawake Mohawk
librarian, Alec Brian Deer.The system
was designed with the needs and
worldviews of the Assembly of First
Nations in Ottawa in mind.4
While keeping in mind the great diversity among Indigenous
Nations, Indigenous Ways of Knowing share a focus in the
relatedness of the world’s phenomena as opposed to the
Western tradition of partition based on difference.Indigenous
epistemology emphasizes relationships between the notions of
self, community, and land.
LCSH relegates works
concerning Indigenous peoples
to the E schedules, reserved for
“History of the Americas”
Library of Congress
“...Western classification and documentation practices
typically assimilate living Indigenous cultures into existing
schemes designed to treat collections as fragmented and
static materials preserving ‘frozen’ knowledge.” - Maria
Libraries and Musuems have a particular colonial relationship
to the Indigenous materials in their collections. Intentionally
and unintentionally, they have historically replicated the
practice of freezing Indigenous groups in historical
This is accomplished by keeping Indigenous materials in
historic schedules or attempting to place artifacts (originally
taken from Indigenous communties) within dioramas that
imagine “how they were once used”. Indigenous people
continue to fightfor intellectual property rights, repatriation, &
accessible representation within organization schemes.
Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels are a set
of 17 digital tags that can be included in a
record as associated metadata in ILSs,
CMSs, and databases. The labels were
by several indigenous groups and designed for
the use of communities who are unable to
assert legal control due to Western
conceptions of authorship and ownership.2
The Power to Name
Information Professionals must
recognize the power
between those who have
institutionally been given the
power to name those
positioned as the subjet being
Working to deconstruct this
relationship must entail en- gaging
Indigenous knowledge holders an
information pro- fessionals as
Indigenous communities decide what
remedies and repatria- tion should
oday’s knowledge organization systems are the products of
Ta long history of development and refinement in approaches
to collecting, categorizing, and preserving information while
making it retrievable to both scholars and members of the
general public. However, this history has been concomitant
with a timeline of imperial and colonial conquest; it isan
inextricable part of an entangled narrative of dispossession,
resource extraction, and violent repression. Within this process,
classificatory practices have often served as tools for the erasure
and dehumanization of colonized peoples, cultures, and histories.
The ongoing marginalization ofindigenous
peoples has been explicitly encodedin
the ways their cultural products - from
everyday objects to artistic works tobodies
themselves - are preserved and presented.
Indigenous knowledge organization is a
radical departure from thelegacy of settler
Current practices of Knowledge Organization and metadata
creation prioritize universality and interoperability at the
expense of source communities being able to identify with
their own histories.
Making Indigenous knowledge intelligible to source communities
through IKO, is a matter of data sovreignty & repatriation; and re-
positions indigenous knowledge as subject to the laws and
practices of the people who are responsible for its creation rather
than its collection.
Decolonization is a political project that
encompasses over 500 years
of Indigenous resistence to settler colonialism.
Decolonization work is about deconstructing
occupation of unceded territory and
reasserting Indigenous sovereignty and
From Cultural Cleansing to
GLAM + Linked Open Data (LOD)
Kelli Hayes, Heidi Klise, Alejandra Perez, Joanna Thompson
What is Linked Open Data?
Linked Data is structured information in a format
meant for machines to understand. To make this
information readable, Linked Data uses web standard
technologies like HTTP and URIs. This enables data
from different sources to be connected and queried.
Linked Open Data (LOD) refers to data that is made
available for public use via Linked Data.
The objective of LOD is to allow data from various
resources to be interconnected, queried and
ultimately more useful.
1.Available on the Web (whatever format) but with
an open license, to be Open Data
2.Available as machine-readable structured data
(e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
3.As (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV
instead of excel)
4.All of the above, plus Use open standards from
W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to identity things, so that
people can point at your stuff
5.All of the above, plus: Link your data to other
people’s data to provide context
LOD in GLAM
The implementation of Linked Open Data in the
GLAM world could better connect different sources
of information for scholarly research.
Catalogs currently function as a means to find more
information about what the patron already knows.
LOD can change that by facilitating more
discoverability of the wide array of sources that
libraries and information organizations have.
Fig. 4: “Examining BIBFRAME 2.0 from the Viewpoint of RDA
Future of Linked Open Data
Bibframe (Bibliographic Framework) is an initiative to
implement bibliographic standards for cataloguing digital
metadata so that online resources can be made available
beyond the library community.
Bibframe 2.0 catalogs information according to three core
levels of abstraction: Work, Instance, & Item.
Wikidata, American Art Collaborative, and more LOD
initiatives are being implemented in GLAMs to expand
access to resources online.
The nature of the web and of digital resources necessitates
a cataloging format and metadata schema that records
accurate relationships between born digital materials and
that references URIs (the “shelves” of the Internet).
Once the data is created, Tim Berners-Lee gives four
rules for creating Linked Data for the Semantic Web:
1.Use of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
2.Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those
3.When someone looks up URL, provide useful
information using the standards (RDF, SPARQL)
4.Include links to other URIs so that they can
discover more things
Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a data
model that, through XML syntax, represents
resources that reside on the Web. The core of an
RDF statement is the triple, which is made of a
subject, predicate and an object. The predicate
connects the subject and object- creating links.
Fig. 2: “Linked Data” Wordlift
Fig. 3: “The basic semantic triple model”
INFO 653 Knowledge Organization | Fall 2019 | Dr. C. Pattuelli
Fig. 1: “The Linked Open Data Cloud” lod-cloud.net
Cataloging Time-Based Media for GLAM
Definition: works of art that can change meaningfully with respect to time
Types of Time-Based Media: video, sound artworks, video cassettes, CDs, slide-based installations
Challenges: no cataloging standard that can be used by all of GLAM, focus on conservation instead
Libraries Archives Museums & Galleries
● The digital preservation and conservation of time-based
● To help mitigate human knowledge loss in specialty formats,
hardware, and process history.
● Ensure longevity, access to artwork, and remain true to the
artist’s intention upon installation.
migration history of a
Draw from cross-
PBcore, METS, PREMIS,
● GLAMS are collaboratively working together to address the stewardship of Time-Based Media collections.
● Linked Data offers the possibility of inter-relating archival information by bridging divides between
different schema and databases.
19th - early 20th century
Standards of cataloging developed to cope
with bound volumes and serials
● DACS can be used to describe time-based archival
records, but it is not specific to time-based media.
● Some digital archives, like the Rhizome ArtBase, have
created their own schema:1949 - 1952 - Addressing non-book
Rules for Descriptive Cataloging in the
Library of Congress: Phonorecords; Motion
Pictures and Filmstrips
1967 - 1978 - Incorporating non-book
material standards with other standards
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules to
Today - Further incorporation
Resource Description and Access
Griesinger, P. (2016). Process history metadata for time-based media artworks at the Museum of Modern
Art, New York. 4, 12.
Weihs, J. (2001). A Somewhat Personal History of Nonbook Cataloguing. Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly, 31(3-4), 159-188. DOI: 10.1300/J104v31n03_03
Malssen, K.V. (2014). BIBFRAME av modeling study: defining a flexible model for description of
audiovisual resources. Retrieved from www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/pdf/bibframe-avmodelingstudy-
Fino-Radin, B. (2011). “Digital Preservation Practices and the Rhizome ArtBase.” Retrieved
Simi Best, Hepzi Rapoport,
Michelle Rosario, and Hilary Wang
INFO 653-02, Fall 2019
Dr. Cristina Patuelli
Use of Metadata
Image: Eadweard Muybridge, Animal Locomotion, Plate 626,
1887, Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington
Laura Indick, Nikki Lopez, Katherine Renzelmann
Beginning around 1970, a coalition of librarian and
non-librarian activists pushed for equal
representation in classification systems such as
Dewey and LCC. One of the most influential advocacy
groups was ALA’s Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Task Force,
founded in 1970. Under the long term leadership of
Barbara Gittings, its members pushed for the adoption
of positive LGBTQ+ subject headings.
LGBTQ Center of Durham
Volunteer-led group of librarians came together to create
an inclusive classification system for the LGBTQ Center of
Durham. This ongoing project is expected to take two years
to thoroughly figure out how to respect LGBTQ
representation and weave the community members into
the conversation of creating a new system. .
They approached this goal by:
● Drafting a call number system (fiction &
● Creating a system using stickers for labeling
fiction groupings (gay, lesbian, etc…)
● Applying the developed system to books in the
● Creating new and or for more complex items
(leave room to grow)
Logo for LGBTQ
Center of Durham
Rapidly changing vocabulary around queer
terminology makes it difficult for classification
systems to keep up. Library professionals have come
up with a few ways to potentially alter queer
cataloging in order to be more accurate and more
inclusive of LGBTQ individuals. Some popular
proposed solutions include: more communication
with LGBTQ community centers, creating multiple
access points by subjects or keywords, integrating
tagging systems into Online Public Access Catalogs,
and new and non-standardized classification
systems. In contrast to these options, some argue
that while the catalog should be updated with new
terms, old ones should not be changed.
LibraryThing integrated into Martindale College’s
Adler, M. (2009). Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in LibraryThing for Transgender Books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309–331.https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900903341099
Carmichael, J.V. (Ed.) (1998). Daring to find our names: The search for lesbigay library history(1-23). Westport, CT, & London, UK: Greenwood Press.
Drabinski, E. (2013). Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction. The Library Quarterly, 83(2), 94–111. doi: 10.1086/669547
Edge, S. J. (2019). A Subject “Queer”-y: A Literature Review on Subject Access to LGBTIQ Materials. The Serials Librarian, 75(1–4), 81–90.https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2018.1556190
Ewing, K. (2019). Beyond Dewey: Creating an LGBTQ Classification System at the LGBTQ Center of Durham. Advances in Librarianship LGBTQ Librarianship in the 21st Century: Emerging Directions of Advocacy and Community Engagement in Diverse Information Environments, 225–242. doi:
Gough, C., & Greenblatt, E. (Eds.) (1990). Gay and lesbian library service (75-101). Jefferson, NC & London: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Greenblatt, E. (Ed.) (2011). Serving LGBTIQ library and archives users: essays on outreach, service, collections and access (212-228). Jefferson, NC & London: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Roberto, K.R. (Ed.) (2008). Radical cataloging: essays at the front. Jefferson, NC & London: McFarland & Company, Inc.
OPAC Baucom, E. (2018). An Exploration into Archival Descriptions of LGBTQ Materials. The American Archivist, 81(1), 65–83.https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-81.1.65.
Queer Theory invites resistance instead of extension of the
coherent library systems that a critical cataloging
movement uphold. Proper cataloging practices can reveal
the process through which these categories and knowledge
about them are produced.
Queer Headings in LCSH
1946: Homosexuality added (see also: Sexual
1972: Gay Liberation Movement added
1976: Homosexuals and Lesbians appear in LCSH
1987: Gay replacesHomosexual
Today: “Queer” appears 3 times in LCSH: Queer
Theory, Queer Theology, and the UF “Queer
Community” under Sexual Minority Community.