KMD1001 DESIGN BRIEF &

ONTOLOGY TASK

Peter Pennefather, Oct 22, 2012

Assignments:

1. KMD Ontology task – 15% (due Sun. Oct. 28 online)

2. A 5x5 presentation in class an online – 15% (over term)

3. Active participation in class and online – 15%

4. Specific KMD framework analysis & critique brief – total 50% (5+5+15+25%)

•Preliminary Design Brief Summary (1 pages) – 5% (Oct 29)

•Design Brief Summary, Framework visualization, Annotated bibliography – 5% (Nov 5)

•10x10 Presentation of Chosen Design Challenge Conceptualization – 15% (Nov 5,12,19,26)

•Final report (around 3000 words) – 25% (due Dec 22)

5. Public group presentation on KMD topic – 5% TBD around KMDI holiday party

Example of a Framework Visualization

S a n d e r s , L i z . " A n E v o l v i n g M a p o f D e s i g n P r a c t i c e a n d D e s i g n R e s e a r c h . "I n t e r a c t i o n s

15.6 (2008): 13-17 5 . 6

Example of a Framework Visualization

ONTOLOGY TASK: In computer and information science an ontology formally represents

knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships among those concepts

In this course we are examining concepts related to how media can be designed and adapted to

promote building and sharing of knowledge. Within that context we are exploring the meaning of

design and waymaking, knowledge and interdisciplinarity and media and embodiment.

The ontology task asks you to discuss relationships between those pairs of concepts or any other

set of 3 pairs of concepts. The task has three stages

1) for each pair specify each concept with a short (about 100 +/- 50 words) definition; pick a

definition that you are comfortable with and that can be linked a reputable and citable source;

2) briefly discuss how the two concepts are related to each other and the overall goals of the

course as you understand them,

3) repeat the exercise for two more concept pairs of your choosing. You should end up with 5

pages of text.

The report should be about 5 pages (1.5 line spacing 2000 words).

Birger Hjorland’s review of Concept Theory

Conceptualization draws upon and supports human memory

Ranganath C and Ritchey M (2012) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13:713-726

Conceptual Design Brief

Kant’s conceptualization of concept formation Kant investigated the way that empirical a posteriori concepts are created. The logical acts

of the understanding by which concepts are generated as to their form are:

1.comparison, i.e., the likening of mental images to one another in relation to the unity of

consciousness;

2.reflection, i.e., the going back over different mental images, how they can be

comprehended in one consciousness; and finally

3.abstraction or the segregation of everything else by which the mental images differ ...

In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare,

reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of the understanding are essential

and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. For example, I see a fir, a

willow, and a linden. In firstly comparing these objects, I notice that they are different from

one another in respect of trunk, branches, leaves, and the like; further, however, I reflect

only on what they have in common, the trunk, the branches, the leaves themselves, and

abstract from their size, shape, and so forth; thus I gain a concept of a tree. — Logic, §6

From Wikipedia entry on Concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept)

DESIGN AS A PROCESS FOR

FORMATTING DATA INTO KNOWLEDGE

Data/Information Input Biased by a Concern or Need

Design Learning Problem Diagnostics Systems

Concept Solving Engineering

Explore Comprehension Discovery Initiation Identify Objectives

(comparison) Application Definition Sensing Specify Criteria

Prototype Analysis Design Analysis Map Relationships

(reflection) Synthesis Decision Making Diagnosis Identify Alternatives

Specify Evaluation Action Planning Reporting Evaluate Alternatives

(abstraction) Innovation Mobilization Indexing Choose One or Two

Knowledge Output Useful in Addressing Concern or Need

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Eng_Design_5-12.html

Meeting Design Challenges

Before Dec 22, all students will have submitted a final design brief outlining their KMD concept or

process innovation and how their analysis suggests a re-design. The brief should have three sections:

1) Map/Indentify the Design Challenge Conceptualization and Desired Outcomes

identify the KMD domain that you will focus on and a particular challenge you will be exploring

provide a history of previous attempts to conceptualize the challenge and contrast them with yours

describe the design constraints, usability, and goals that are guiding your design conceptualization

provide a summary of uncertainties and gaps in knowledge related to the proposed approach

2) Prototype

Consider a few implications of the way that you have chosen to conceive of the challenge

develop a framework for evaluating the outcomes of the suggested solutions to the challenge,

think of situations and people who could find your approach useful

imagine possible impacts of different possible solutions consistent with your constraints and values

determine which of these you want to specify in greater detail and why

3) Detail/Specify

identify a specific use case and user community that could appreciate your solution

summarize why the solution is appropriate at the suggested time and place

analyze strategies for obtaining confirming your expectations

analyze potential sources of support for implementing further study and refinement of your concept

analyze potential resistance to or criticism of your design conceptualization

4) Synopsis

Systems of Devices & Media (Technology)

Industrial Design & Engineering, ICT, Electronics, Informatics

Knowledge Systems (Place)

Academic Disciplines & Media Higher & Professional Education

People Seeking & Sharing Information (People)

Sense-making, Knowledge Building, Community-of-Practice Colleges & Universities, Internet, Libraries, Media, Publishing, Consulting

Knowledge Media Design a design process to explore ways of enabling

formatting of data and presentation of information so as to allow groups to build, represent, and mobilize

contextualized knowledge within a system

Integrative Knowledge Media Design Research Model

People Seeking & Sharing Information (People)

Sense-making, knowledge Buiding, Community-of-Practice Colleges & Universities, Internet, Libraries, Media, Publishing, Consulting

Knowledge Media Design a design process to explore ways of enabling

formatting of data and presentation of information so as to allow groups to build, represent, and mobilize

contextualized knowledge within a system

Integrative Knowledge Media Design Research Model

Knowledge Media Designer

(knowledge integrationist)

Sub-Theme:

Challenge:

Having Knowledge &

Mapping Intentions

Visualizing of Actions

& Consequences

Embodying Interactions

& Solutions

Design &

Wayfinding

Knowledge &

Interdisciplinarity

Media &

Embodiment

Matrix of themes and Challenges to be considered in the course

Conceptualizing Significance in Guiding Research Information Seeking

Tacit

Explicit

Three Articulated Dimensions of Significance Perspectives

(subject) client

Server (instruments)

How the Information is Used

20

Theory & Model

Attribute

Qualities

Match

Relevance/Pertinence

Standing

Certification / Authenticity

Authority

Credibility/Trust

Validity (guidance/true)

How it functions?

Interpretational,

Epistemological

Perceived Usability

(Material)

Persuasively True

(Real)

Evident Quality of

Source (Ranking)

Precedence (perspectives/

insight/ discrimination)

What is it about?

Topical, Ontological

Perceived Usefulness

(Germane)

Persuasive Warrant

(Acceptable)

Evident Credentials

(Clarity)

Maturity (feasibility)

How can it be used?

Motivational, Methodological

Perceived Utility

(Actionable)

Persuasively Feasible

(Reasonable)

Evident Impact

(Reliable)

Attribute Objective Representation

(Extracted from data analysis)

Subjective Representation

(Introspective interpretation)

Match

Claims in source (meaning)

Relevance – Statistical,.

matching query string

Pertinence – Judged.

useful to question

Standing

Warranted linking of claim to

evidence (agency)

Certification – Warranted by

journal, editor, publisher,

repository, organization etc.

Authenticity – Authorial intent,

revealed & accessible in source

Authority

Evidence in source (power)

Credibility – Source’s

credentials, citations, history

Trust – Subjective recognition

of trustworthy source

Three Articulated Perspectives on Information Significance

(subject) User

Server (instruments)

How the Information is used (diffusion/application)

MA

TCH

Relevance

Pertinence

(go

vern

ance

/co

nsu

mp

tio

n)

Reflection Judgement Meaning