Indigenizando sistemas de organização do conhecimento e a teia semântica

IV Seminário do Grupo de Pesquisa MHTX – 2021 Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) | Escola de Ciência da Informação (ECI) INDIGENIZANDO SISTEMAS DE ORGANIZAÇÃO DO CONHECIMENTO E A TEIA SEMÂNTICA INDIGENIZING KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION SYSTEMS AND THE SEMANTIC WEB Louise F. Spiteri, Dalhousie University [email protected] Resumo: Sistemas dominantes de organização do conhecimento, como a Biblioteca do Congresso de Títulos de Assuntos e os Sistemas de Classificação Decimal Dewey têm vieses e estruturas inerentes que marginalizam os conhecimentos indígenas. O paradigma dominante dos sistemas de conhecimento ocidentais baseia-se na crença central de que o conhecimento é uma entidade discreta que pode ser adquirida e de propriedade de um indivíduo. Em contraste, a crença fundamental do paradigma indígena é a de que o conhecimento é relacional. A Organização do Conhecimento Indígena é um campo emergente de estudo focado nos protocolos e métodos de descrever, nomear, co-localizar e fornecer acesso a objetos e materiais, cujo conhecimento é de grande importância para as formas indígenas. Esta apresentação explorará modelos conceituais e projetos de como indigenizar sistemas de organização do conhecimento, incluindo abordagens para codificar informações relacionais por meio de técnicas web semânticas. Palavras-chave: conhecimento indígena; organização do conhecimento; sistemas de organização do conhecimento; web semântica. Abstract: Dominant knowledge organization systems, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Dewey Decimal Classification Systems have inherent biases and structures that marginalize Indigenous knowledges. The dominant paradigm of Western knowledge systems is based upon the central belief that knowledge is a discrete entity that can be gained and owned by an individual. In contrast, the fundamental belief of the Indigenous paradigm is that knowledge is relational. Indigenous Knowledge Organization (IKO) is an emerging field of study focused on the protocols and methods of describing, naming, co-locating, and providing access to objects and materials that are of importance to Indigenous ways of knowing. This presentation will explore conceptual models and projects for how to indigenize knowledge organization systems, including approaches to coding relational information via semantic web techniques. Keywords: indigenous knowledge; knowledge organization; knowledge organization systems; semantic web. 1 INTRODUCTION Indigenous Knowledge Organization (IKO) is an emerging field of study focused on the protocols and methods of describing, naming, co-locating, and providing access to objects and materials that are of importance to Indigenous ways of knowing. Much of my interest in this topic is informed by developments in Canada. The government of Canada sponsored religious schools, known as residential schools, that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was established “to facilitate reconciliation among former students, their families, their communities and all Canadians” (GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2021b). In 2015, the Commission published its findings, which included 94 "calls to action" to further reconciliation between Canadians and Indigenous peoples (TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF CANADA, 2015), including those directed to knowledge organizations to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNITED NATIONS, 2008). The Canadian Federation of Library Associations embraced the call to decolonize access and classification systems and committed to addressing the structural biases in existing KOS arising from colonialism, and to “integrating Indigenous epistemologies into cataloguing praxis and knowledge management (CALLISON, 2017, p. 3). The call to evaluate knowledge organization systems (KOS) is also in keeping with IFLA’s acknowledgment of “the intrinsic value and importance of Indigenous traditional knowledge and local community knowledge, and the need to consider it holistically in spite of contested conceptual definitions and uses” (THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS, 2019). Dominant KOS, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Dewey Decimal Classification Systems have inherent biases and structures that marginalize Indigenous knowledges. The dominant paradigm of Western knowledge systems is based upon the central belief that knowledge is a discrete entity that can be gained and owned by an individual. In contrast, the fundamental belief of the Indigenous paradigm is that knowledge is relational. This paper will explore conceptual models and projects for how to indigenize knowledge organization systems, including approaches to coding relational information via semantic web techniques. There is no single definition of Indigenous knowledge (IK). Alberts, Fogwill, and Keet (2021) suggest that IK is the local and traditional knowledge held by peoples of a particular geographic area, that is transferred by the sharing of experiences and skills, and by storytelling across the generations. The Government of Canada (2021a) posits that IK reflects the unique cultures, languages, governance systems and histories of Indigenous peoples from a particular location. Hajibayova and Buente (2017, p. 139) suggest that IK “is generally conveyed by oral transmission and characterized by personal, experiential knowledge, and holistic knowledge embodied in narrative and metaphor”. Sy et al. (2021) posit that IK is embedded in relationships and shared knowledge. Two common themes in the definitions of IK pertain to its holistic, shared, and relational nature. 2 INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION SYSTEMS Most mainstream KOS are built on premises that differ significantly from those of Indigenous knowledge. The dominant paradigm of these mainstream KOS is the Western positivist worldview. Positivism is based strongly on the notion of objective and scientific fact based on observed phenomena and experiences. The positivist paradigm is characterized by its adherence to establishing universal truths, objective reality, and a tendency to reduce knowledge into discrete component parts (MOULAISON SANDY; BOSSALLER, 2017; PULSIFER et al., 2011). In keeping with the positivist paradigm, most mainstream KOS are based on establishing rules that define the parameters and boundaries of knowledge, such as via classification systems or ontologies, or imposing standards on terminologies, such as thesauri, to avoid ambiguity and the vagaries of natural language (BUENTE et al., 2020). As social constructs that reflect the biases of the cultures and social environments in which they were created, it is questionable the extent to which any KOS can represent any objective reality or universal truth; what is perhaps more certain, is that mainstream KOS can serve to impose a particular worldview on society. In contrast to the positivist paradigm, IK does not distinguish between observable and non-observable phenomena; rather, it is embedded in local cultures and belief systems, demonstrates a strong connection between nature and culture, has strong ties to local environments, and often uses metaphors to explain complex phenomena (PULSIFER et al., 2011). The holistic nature of IK means that knowledge cannot be separated from land, work, life-practices, and the relations between the individual or community and the natural world (CHERRY; MUKUNDA, 2015). Designing KOS that can successfully represent IK requires an openness to “differing world views, such as folk, local, or indigenous traditions and beliefs or religion or other potentially marginalized ways of thinking” (MOULAISON SANDY; BOSSALLER, 2017, p. 134). Understanding the fundamental differences between Western Indigenous knowledge is an important step in addressing the structural biases and colonial heritage of our KOS. Decolonizing existing KOS is a long-term process involving the bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic and psychological divesting of colonial power, and embedding Indigenous worldviews and knowledge into how we organize and transmit knowledge. “The application of decolonizing practices can be described as involving the process of restoring status to Indigenous knowledge and society by rediscovering indigeneity and identity from the obscurity enforced by colonization (LILLEY, 2021, p. 2). Studies of mainstream KOS such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) point to a number of concerns with regard to how they represent IK. Mainstream KOS reflect the biases of the dominant culture and marginalize or completely exclude Indigenous histories, cultures, knowledges, languages, and efforts toward self-determination. Indigenous knowledges are marginalized through historicization, omission, lack of specificity, lack of relevance and lack of recognition of sovereign nations (BUENTE et al., 2020; DOYLE, 2006; WEBSTER; DOYLE, 2008). Doyle, Lawson, and Dupont (2015) posit that the organization of IK in KOS reflects the views and values of newcomers to Indigenous territories, rather than Indigenous perspectives or values. Given the shortcomings of mainstream KOS to represent IK, there is increasing focus on establishing the foundational principles of Indigenous knowledge organization, with a focus on Indigenous experience and thought, Indigenous rights and title, self-determination, and ethical access to knowledge (LITTLETREE; BELARDE-LEWIS; DUARTE, 2020). These principles are based on the relational way of being, and the importance of relationships among people, family, land, ancestors, ideas, and with the cosmos (LITTLETREE; METOYER, 2015). Relationality is the key conceptual underpinnings of Indigenous KOS, as well as the understanding that knowledge stems from direct experiences, such as telling, listening, and using traditional stories and teachings, as well as from carefully observing the natural environment and understanding the effects of forces in the world (LITTLETREE; BELARDE-LEWIS; DUARTE, 2020). These principles are reflected in extant Indigenous KOS, such as the Brian Deer Classification which was developed in the 1970s in Canada. This system was designed for only a small collection, however, and is not yet suited to large interdisciplinary literatures on Indigenous topics and scholarship (DOYLE, 2006; DOYLE; LAWSON; DUPONT, 2015; GILMAN, 2006). The New Zealand Library and Information Association established a working party and produced draft guidelines for the development of subject headings in 2001. The core principles incorporated three concepts: Wairua (the spiritual), Tinana (the physical) and Hinengaro (the psychological/mental). Perspective was added to the extant sub-divisions of Time, Place, Topic, and Form, to indicate whether a subject reflects a pre-contact approach, a modern approach, or a non-Maori approach (LILLEY, 2015). 3 THE SEMANTIC WEB AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE The incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into linked data and the semantic web is a more recent development and one that faces unique benefits and challenges. The semantic web uses the Resource Description Framework (RDF) to link, share or merge data across different applications, enterprises, and community boundaries. RDF applies a unique Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to related concepts, regardless of the languages used to express those concepts. The RDF model and its three entities (subject, predicate, and object) could be useful to accommodate the polysemic interrelationships that are common to Indigenous knowledges, and that can guide end-user discovery and navigation (CHI; SUNG; LIEN, 2020; CORN; PATRICK, 2019). Alberts, Fogwill, and Keet (2012) suggest that the semantic web provides the ability to browse IK based on inherent structures and relationships, and the ability to access and query IK in different languages through common URIs. Collected IK is often unstructured, transferred in different local languages and described using local vernacular terms. The mapping abilities of the semantic web may be well positioned to deal with these unique challenges. Semantic web tools and techniques can provide a high degree of flexibility and customization and allow for entities to be related to each other in different ways. Ontologies, which will be addressed below, can be created to represent multiple Indigenous knowledges that sit alongside more mainstream standardized ontologies (CORN; PATRICK, 2019). The semantic web is not, however, without its complications when it comes to representing IK. The semantic web relies on the mapping of a complex network of ontologies. Ontologies are formal frameworks that establish the classes, relationships and constraints that act on the concepts and entities within a given system. Ontologies are largely hierarchical and top-down in their structure, which reflects the positivist Western paradigm described earlier. This hierarchical structure may not accommodate the more complicated polysemic relational nature of IK. Classification in conventional ontologies, where an entity that belongs to one category cannot be in another one, contrasts with the holistic perspective in Indigenous conceptualizations, where concepts may belong in different categories. Indigenous conceptualizations are often referred to as relational ontologies, where everything is defined by its relationships with humans, animals, more-than-human agents, and physical entities (REID; SIEBER, 2020). 4 THE PATH FORWARD We have an obligation to pursue an ethical framework of knowledge representation and organization that is derived from, and respects, the concept of cultural warrant, which encompasses the “rich cultural values, beliefs and histories of diverse populations of individuals and communities” (BUENTE et al., 2020, p. 1287). The perspectives of the Indigenous peoples around the globe should be foundational building blocks of ethical knowledge representation and KOS. This means that information professionals need to focus on understanding Indigenous worldviews, beliefs, and values, and how these inform the representation, organization, and dissemination of Indigenous knowledge (LILLEY, 2021). White (2018) suggests that focusing on micro-level revisions to existing KOS to better represent Indigenous knowledge is not sufficient, as these revisions do not address the underlying and systemic biases of the systems. Rather, our profession needs to focus on building KOS that incorporate broader cultural warrants and that do not reflect colonial biases. Creating KOS that reflect the cultural warrants of Indigenous peoples means that we must be willing to work with members of Indigenous communities to build KOS that truly reflect Indigenous perspectives, cultural warrant, and needs. We need to embrace “fluid ontologies,” that is to work with Indigenous communities to co-create KOS, and to use tools such as tags, annotations, and tag clusters to reflect Indigenous users’ dynamic conceptualizations in their own languages and categorization (REID; SIEBER, 2020). If our profession is to truly embrace the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNITED NATIONS, 2008), our profession needs to embark on a radical shift in the mindset that has thus far dominated the construction of mainstream KOS. REFERENCES ALBERTS, R.; FOGWILL, T.; KEET, C. M. Several required OWL features for Indigenous knowledge management systems. In: PROCEEDINGS OF OWL: EXPERIENCES AND DIRECTIONS WORKSHOP 2012, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 27-28, 2012. BUENTE, W. et al. Exploring the renaissance of wayfinding and voyaging through the lens of knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems. Journal of Documentation, [s. l.], v. 76, n. 6., p. 1279-1293, 2020. CALLISON, C. CFLA-FCAB Truth and Reconciliation report and recommendations. [S. l.: s. n.], 2017. Disponível em: http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee-Reportand-Recommendations-ISBN1.pdf. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. CHERRY, A.; MUKUNDA, K. A case study in indigenous classification: Revisiting and reviving the Brian Deer scheme. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 53, n. 5-5, p. 548-567, 2015. CHI, Y.-L.; SUNG, H.-Y.; LIEN, Y.-Y. Towards the ethnic understanding of Taiwanese Indigenous peoples: a mashup based on Semantic Web and open data. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 2020, Sanya, china, Dec. 4-6, 2020. CORN, A.; PATRICK, S, W, J. Exploring the applicability of the Semantic Web for discovering and navigating Australian Indigenous knowledge resources. Archives and Manuscripts, [s. l.], v. 47, n. 1, p. 131-152, 2019. DOYLE, A. M. Naming and reclaiming Indigenous knowledges in public institutions: Intersections of landscapes and experience. Advances in Knowledge Organization, v. 10, p. 435-442, 2006. DOYLE, A. M.; LAWSON, K.; DUPONT. S. Indigenization of knowledge organization at the Xwi7xwa Library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 107-142, 2015. THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS. IFLA statement on Indigenous traditional knowledge. [S. l.: s. n.], 2019. Disponível em: https://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla-statement-on-indigenous-traditional-knowledge/. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. GILMAN, I. From marginalization to accessibility: classification of Indigenous materials. Faculty Scholarship (PUL), [s. l.], v. 6, p. 1–40, 2006. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. Indigenous knowledge. 2021a. Disponível em: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/programs/aboriginal-consultation-federa l-environmental-assessment/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework-initiative/indigenous-k nowledge.html. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. [S. l.: s. n.], 2021b. Disponível em: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060525. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. HAJIBAYOVA, L.; BUENTE, W. Representation of Indigenous cultures: considering the Hawaiian hula. Journal of Documentation, [s. l.], v. 73, n. 6, 1137-1148, 2017. LILLEY, S. C. Ka Pō, Ka Ao, Ka Awatea. The interface between epistemology and Māori subject headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 53, n. 5–6, p. 479–495, 2015. LILLEY, S. C. Transformation of library and information management: decolonization or indigenization? IFLA Journal, [s. l.], v. 47, n. 3, p. 1-14, 2021. LITTLETREE, S.; BELARDE-LEWIS, M.; DUARTE, M. Centering relationality: a conceptual model to advance Indigenous knowledge organization practices. Knowledge Organization, [s. l.], v. 47, n. 5, p. 410-426, 2020. LITTLETREE, S.; METOYER, C. A. Knowledge organization from an Indigenous perspective: the Mashantucket Pequot thesaurus of American Indian terminology project. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 53, n. 5–6, p. 640-657, 2015. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1010113. Acesso em: 1 set. 2025. MOULAISON SANDY, H.; BOSSALLER, J. Providing cognitively just subject access to Indigenous knowledge through knowledge organization systems. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 55, n. 3, p. 129-152, 2017. PULSIFER, P. L. et al. Towards an Indigenist data management program: reflections on experiences developing an atlas of sea ice knowledge and use. The Canadian Geographer, [s. l.], v. 55, n. 1, p. 108–124, 2011. REID, G.; SIEBER, R. Do geospatial ontologies perpetuate Indigenous assimilation? Progress in Human Geography, [s. l.], v. 44, n. 2, p. 216–234, 2020. SY, W. C. et al.. An arts organization policy brief on Indigenous knowledges. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, [s. l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-8, 2021. TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF CANADA. Calls to action. [S. l.: s. n.], 2015. Disponível em: https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pd f. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. UNITED NATIONS. United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. [S. l.: s. n.], 2008. Disponível em: https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021. WEBSTER, K.; DOYLE, A. M. Don't class me in antiquities! Giving voice to Native American materials. In: ROBERTO, K. R. Radical cataloging: Essays at the front. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008. WHITE, H. C. Decolonizing the way libraries organize. IFLA WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS, Kuala Lumpur. 2018. Disponível em: https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2221/1/207-white-en.pdf. Acesso em: 18 out. 2021.