知识组织系统

这篇短篇涉及一组与现实世界有关的对象的知识组织系统。问题的主体是十的电脑配件的组合：即桌面、显示器、优盘、电脑音箱、老鼠、键盘、摄像头、外接硬盘、PC麦克风和图形片。由于高度集成的性质和在当代信息技术的进步，计算机配件是连接到彼此的高显着的方式。从笔记本电脑的麦克风硬盘，这些部件的机器的大联盟，在本质上，同一类的/组，是计算机的一部分（赫尔辛基大学，2015，墨菲，2015）。尽管如此，每一个电脑的附件是专为不同的目的，并与不同的用途。他们往往是多用途的高度依赖于用户拥有他们的类别。

同样的，每一件饰品有着不同的观点，硬件和软件的能力，以及相容性。毫无疑问电脑配件的一部分保存的建筑师，但它们的功能是不同的，所以他们的应用程序（functionx公司，2015）。因此，知识组织系统（KOS），让用户能够区分它们的类型，和最适合他们的要求是有特别有利。
This short piece deals with the knowledge organization systems for a group of objects relating to the real world. The body in question is an assemblage of ten ‘Computer Accessories’ namely:The Desktop, Monitors, USB Flash Drives, PC Speakers, Mice, Keyboards, Webcams, External Hard Drives, PC Microphones and Graphic Tablets. Thanks to the highly integrated nature and advancements in contemporary information technology, the Computer Accessories are connected to each other in high significant ways. Ranging from notebook microphones to hard drives, the alliance of these parts of the big machine is, in essences, a part of the same class/group that is the—computer (University of Helsinki, 2015, Murphy, 2015). Nonetheless, each of the accessories of the Computer is designed for the distinct purpose and with a diverse use. They most often are multi-purpose as highly depend upon the category of the user owning them. 

Similarly, each piece of accessory has a different outlook, hardware and software capabilities as well as compatibilities. No doubt that computer accessories are part of save architect, but their functionalities are way different and so are their applications (FunctionX Inc., 2015). Thus, knowledge organization systems (KOS) that enable users to distinguish their types, and is most suitable with their requirements is especially advantageous to have. Given the competing nature and attractive features of modern accessories, there are numerous user kinds interested in choosing a unique computer accessory for us. This is what makes the knowledge KOS, even more, pivotal in the real world.

The user type depends on the level of society and the relative purchasing power of the societal groups. However, there are somewhat three diverse types of user clusters which will most likely be concerned in selecting an accessory that best suits their respective necessities. Taking into account the varied nature of the needs, such groups (henceforth) will be known as: friend, personal and professional accessories owners. Each one of these groups has not only different needs for the accessories that they might choose but also entirely different motivations for even having an accessory as a possession to begin with. Alike, an associate/friend and a professional accessory owner may both need an accessory for say home use. However, one may badly desire an accessory for personal use and other may also want to have it for the same motives along with market requirements. The professional accessory owner may wish to sell out to customers but, what is crucial is that the accessory in its essence fulfills the pragmatic necessities in both personal as well as professional life.#p#分页标题#e#

The associate accessory owner may encompass personals and family who are motivated in owning an attractive piece of accessory perhaps, merely for fulfilling their lifestyle needs be it listening to music or play games. For instance, an undergraduate student may wish to take a laptop microphone for only listening music and impressing his sibling among others. But for also listening video tutorials and taking advantage of many e-resources i.e. listen to books which also comes in mp3 format.  Essentially providing contentment to one with multiple purpose utility.  In a similar fashion, a professional musician may seek microphone which would certainly help him do his work more accurately as he/she composes and listen to some collection he/she like. A similar situation can go on. A passenger can also take the accessory and listen to the news, music or some favorite speech of his/her liking. Hence serves the purpose that the computer accessories owners have different needs and objectives for taking and spending on what they like.  

The professional wholesalers and retailers in some market would keep an accessory that is of a particular brand, latest and that the consumers will likely to buy. They will certainly earn more money if owning the latest stock of well-known brands in their passions. Research points that some top quality for instance among other the USB flash drives attracts more young customers than mere copies of brands or duplicates (Ahmed et al., 2013). Reason being that there are people out there in the real world how are brand conscious and are always willing to pay any price they like a piece for.  

Refers toAppendix B, the point in context is that the preferences of people differ. And so does their needs. The professional people with both selling and using accessories for professional purposes differ in their respective needs. Firstly, the professional working in any field ought to consider their key needs and jobs they would like the piece of electronics do for them. What specifics they wish to accomplish say with a laptop or and new hard drive. Is it the hard drive size that matters the most for them? For few it would be the quality of drive or the unit. For other it may not be that much point of concern as they all have different objectives and budget ranges. Choosing the idiosyncratic details are what matters and are should be the point of concern.   

The human species has varied and has always adopted new changes since the known history (Garshol, 2004). Their information and knowledge organization has evolved over the passage of the time as we have discovered. Thus, the key is the capability of people to adopt and look for their needs as they perceive them to fit best. To my limited understanding, the aforementioned are the three category of KOS that may best cover and explain the three set of user classes. The reason why I have opted for these systems is that the system is based on the notion of ‘one size fit all’ (Spiteri, 1998). In other words, my categorization can use any of the three systems to seek an accessory to best suit their need. Now coming back to systems, the three tiers that I have pointed above are facet analysis, pick lists and taxonomies. #p#分页标题#e#

The facet analysis is a most desirable choice for the systems here. The is because there are distinct users with different needs for impending computer accessories. As emphasized throughout the lectures and highlighted by many scholars that it is the facet analysis which allows to every type of users to select their need which best suit their preferences, visual appearances, and personal likings in an organized and an organic way (Costantini et al., 2015, Barre, 2012). Best case scenario in hand are the computer accessories.

In addition, it will certainly allow each of the user type to opt for the facets that attract them the most. It is true and also applies to different persons in the same user collection—that is a result of the utility of “characteristics of division that will distinguish clearly among these component parts” (Spiteri, 1998). It looks to be the foremost spontaneous of the data association ways for this explicit cluster of real-world objects as a result of their distinguishing aspects square measure, therefore, varied.  Essentially, it is not merely an accessories’ power for sure long term results or their width, height, or their color, or their recognition for their quality or their functionalities and effectivity in sure sorts of residences that make them appropriate for even one user group. It can be a combination of all of those aspects that produces a computer accessory completely finest for a given selected owner.

Coming back to the pick lists. They are for two motives. Firstly, these involve a lot of the features of facet evaluation (mainly because the pick lists need not be mutually distinctive from facet analysis). Secondly, modern users today know how to use such directories in order to filter their needs. Thanks to the comfort of modern users with KOC i.e. website, the pick lists are natural systems for a large majority of people now a day (Hlava, 2014, Hornik et al., 2007, Hodge, 2000). The pick lists for directories put a good convenience in which, (although not exact as the facet analysis), is the more pleasing towards the normal end users. Certainly, not every end user is going to be prepared giving up perfection for convenience, but several, and that creates this kind of understanding firm technique that may be valued researching (Ibid).

For this short piece, the taxonomy is applied as a KOS. Nonetheless, it is utilized here in a slightly unorthodox way. That is, it is a choice which is not very often use in the KOS (Gilchrist and Vernau, 2012, Smiraglia, 2014). It is already argued above that the accessories are an essential part of the same class of computers and electronics. Nevertheless, they are almost spread into many taxonomies clusters of the computer. Although such groups are not fully or separately recognized by the scholarly community nor by the established authorities of the time. Take the example for hard drives, of course, they form an integral part of a computer yet, lack separate recognition.#p#分页标题#e#

To my understanding, the facet group, grounded in the style in which all of the above mentioned three user sets incline to elect accessory of their choice, it appears to be the sturdiest technique of information organization.  Conversely, the flaws of facet organization in terms of providing to all the user crowds is the issue of order. It is reasonably unpretentious to create the hierarchy which is fit to any one user group, it is further challenging to generate one that sees the prerequisites of all three user groups correspondingly. If each user assembly were being deliberated individually, facet organization may be the best all-around choice or one fit all as already pointed.  Though, I chose to work with three diverse user groups for a definite purpose that is all are likely computer accessory owners. More crucially most real-world eventual accessory vendors perhaps, do not fall straight into one of those three user groupings. As most of them are an amalgamation of two or three of those classifications, and thus, I consider that it is foremost to have all three main types in concentration while consolidating computer breeds.

As already pointed out that the pick lists have numerous same powers as well as drawback of facet analysis systems.  However, these two do vary in some traditions. Consider a few differences. First and foremost, the pick lists could primarily assist to discern users in a way which facet analysis (that concentrates on consistencies among the facets of the objects themselves) may not. To illustrate, an early pick list record can ask about the possible vendor: Do you plan to use your computer accessories as friend, personal aid kit, or professional support backup? The shortcoming of such an extra suppleness is resulting in an instinctual way to protection all sides of the substances in the set in a natural manner. For those users who are more frank with a critical behavior, this additional level of specious litheness could collapse into letting them think too much, and too many times or can easily discourage them since they are not capable of accessing the info they pursue fast sufficiently.

Given such complexities, the notion of taxonomy renders a bit more of modernized methodology than either other two does. It is superlative for the actual informed or skilled user.  Yet, it can also be confusing the unacquainted user too.  Take the example of SanDisk Extreme USB flash drives, they can be the best computer accessory for an individual approaching acquaintance accessory owner. But, as already pointed that a person may not be accustomed to what a SanDisk Extreme flash drive is, they may be put off from selecting that USB, and instead choose a microphone. Though this is not to argue that they might not discover a very suitable computer accessory, but they may not find the computer accessory they are/were looking for.

As a matter of fact, this struggle was the most challenging part of evaluating the pros and cons of each of the KOS I chose in this short piece.  Confirming that each user might find a desirable choice with comparative ease in (at least one of the systems chosen) was reasonably straightforward, though. Yet, safeguarding that the users are capable of finding an enhanced option/choice is harder. That is to say that it is also rather straightforward to plan a system in which a user be required to contribute in its routine and may find them the ideal choice too. Unfortunately, the users are not bound to use any certain system as they are free beings. That is why they look more likely to make the move of their choice to use a system that prefers and maximizes easiness over one precision.#p#分页标题#e#

For me, the issue between ease of operating over precisions of effects is central to the knowledge organization field as a whole. Thus, the user satisfaction is foremost and is actually the cornerstone of any KOS. Corporates focusing on easiness over precisions generates more demands as academics have been stressing since very long. Fortunately, user-centered products now somehow dominate the marketplaces and that is the key to the success of any KOS.  Lastly, there is a high need of creating the balance between what best suits the users, and, what is more, beneficial for companies. This notion of creating balance is something that I was not aware of before undertaking this short yet a very productive learning assignment.

 

Reference文献
 

AHMED, H. M., RAZI, A., ILYAS, J., BHATTI, M. B., KHALIL, M., MOIN, HASEEB, S. & ALI, S. 2013. Is Youth Brand Conscious. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Marketing, 13.

BARRE, K. L. 2012. Facet analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 243–284.

COSTANTINI, G., RICHETIN, J., BORSBOOM, D., FRIED, E. I., RHEMTULLA, M. & PERUGINI, M. 2015. Development of Indirect Measures of Conscientiousness: Combining a Facets Approach and Network Analysis. European Journal of Personality, 29, 548–567.

FUNCTIONX INC. 2015. Network Hardware [Online]. FunctionX, Inc., , . Available: http://www.functionx.com/networking/Lesson02.htm [Accessed 25 November 2015].

GARSHOL, L. M. 2004. Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all. interChange, 10, 17-30.

GILCHRIST, A. & VERNAU, J. 2012. Facets of Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the ISKO UK Second Biennial Conference, 4th-5th July, 2011, London, Emerald.

HLAVA, M. 2014. The Taxobook: History, Theories, and Concepts of Knowledge Organization, Part 1 of a Part-3 Series, Albuquerque, Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

HODGE, G. 2000. Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files. Washington, DC: The Digital Library Federation Council on Library and Information Resources.

HORNIK, J., COHEN, E. H. & AMAR, R. 2007. A Facet metatheoretical approach to advance consumer behavior knowledge. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 787-813.

MURPHY, D. 2015. Make Your Own Tech Accessories [Online]. San Francisco, CA: IDG Consumer & SMB/PCWorld. Available: http://www.pcworld.com/article/223492/make_your_own_tech_accessories.html [Accessed November 21 2015].

SMIRAGLIA, R. 2014. The Elements of Knowledge Organization, Springer International Publishing.

SPITERI, D. L. 1998. A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 23, 1-30.

UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI. 2015. Basic parts and functionality of the computer. ICT Driving Licence reading material [Online]. Available from: http://blogs.helsinki.fi/ict-driving-licence/1-introduction-to-the-use-of-computers/1-1-computer-functionality/basic-parts-and-functionality-of-the-computer/ [Accessed November 18 2015].#p#分页标题#e#

 

 

Faceted classification scheme for Computer Accessories

 

Scheme

 

G M T

Foci Genre Main Instrument Time Period RecordID

1 Desktop Host,Monitor 1970s G1

2 Monitors Light bulbs Early1940s G2

3 USB Flash Drives NAND flash memory Early 1980s G3

4 PC Speakers Mono speaker Early 1990s G4

5 Mice Typing/textual commands/ trackball 1941 G5

6 Keyboard Typewriters/ text entry device Early 1867 G6

7 Webcam Camera/ video recording devices Late 1991 G7

8 External hard drive RAMAC 305 system 1956 #p#分页标题#e#G8

9 Microphone Masks, cups 1870s. G9

10 Graphic tablet Pressure sensitive pen,tablet Early1980s G10

 

The modern computer comes with a variety of accessories—compulsory to its use. A typical contemporary computer is capable and compatible with a wider range of accessories that the modernized population of the world uses. Among other such accessories as microphone is an integral part that forms the computers. In short, the computing in our times is not only about pieces when taken altogether makes a great unit of machines but are also a key source of contentment for people and revenues for corporates. These parts are invented on different time and in different settings. The oldest is the monitor that has changed so much since the forth decade of 19th century classification code G2.