In response to:
Svenonius, Elaine. (2000) “The intellectual foundation of information organization.” Cambridge: MIT Press. Chapter 5.
Jacob, Elin K. & Shaw, Deborah. (1998 ) “Sociocognitive Perspectives on Representation.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 33.
I am still reading through the lens of user-generated versus professional organization systems. I do think that Weinberger’s third order of order is a new reality. Perhaps not a completely new, but a difference from previous organization environments. Certainly while items could be found or collocated by title, author, and subject in book-catalogs and then with somewhat greater ease in card catalogs, the degree to which it is possible in digital environments makes it significant. In perspective of the principles of organization, one of the ways that the third order relates to organization is through tagging. Individual knowledge structures in the form of tags attached to an item can reflect only one person’s organizational interests, but one user’s tags will probably reflect the interests and cognitive patterns of the discourse domains discussed by Hjørland and Albrectsen. As a discourse domain is a construct of individual knowledge structures, individual’s tag contributions taken in aggregate should create a functional organization system for a relatively homogeneous discourse community. The problem comes from the need to collogate according to the knowledge and needs of a heterogeneous group. Tibbo points the problem out in relation to abstracting language, but anyone interested in tagging for long-term organization needs to be concerned about the changing nature of language and meaning. Tags may bring up current documents, but there is a likelihood that this sort of organizational structure would suffer degradation of value over time.