|Home 10 Pillars Map Tree Rationale Forum About Terms Contact||Search
top academic & professional resources
Post your comments now!
Generic model for all/most fields
10Pk has 4 main characteristics (hierarchical structure, distinction between categories of the map and fields of knowledge, the metaknowledge- subject-based knowledge structure, the theory-embodiment structure). They enable to form a generic model for structuring specific fields.
Part 1: Metaknowledge (usually this part is called "Theory" although it has other contents)
1. Theory (the theoretical foundations of the field; exemplary fields: philosophy of ).
2. Context (the historical and cultural aspects of the field; exemplary fields: history of..., sociology of...).
3. Methodology (the research and evaluation methodologies of the field).
4. Education (the academic and professional education and training).
Part 2: Subject-based Knowledge (this part is composed of the relevant branches/subfields) (Chaim Zins, March 4, 2013)
University of Cundinamarca, Colombia
I am a student of Systems Engineering at the University of Cundinamarca, Colombia. Where do you place on the 10PK map the field of systems engineering? Systems engineering provides a holistic view on the engineering of complex systems? (March 13, 2013)
Chaim Zins: Systems engineering is associated with engineering, which is placed in Pillar 9 (technology), cat 2 (professions) (cat. 65). However, we still need to clarify the conception of systems engineering in order to determine if it is a distinct field of knowledge. This should be done with experts in systems engineering. (March 13, 2013).
List of Participants
Prof. Wareeya Bhavabhutanonda
feel so grateful to your kind offer of academic assistance and to
translate the 10 Pillars of Knowledge into the Thai language.
delighted to accept your kindness. It’s a great honor
to me to do so.
Chaim Zins: I will be delighted to work with you on the Thai edition of the map and on academic course.Prof. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM) - Stuttgart Media University, Stuttgart, Germany
Homepages: http://www.capurro.de; http://icie.zkm.de; http://www.i-r-i-e.net
What you have created is a systematic interface to human knowledge. This is a highly valuable and useful artifact. It can be implemented in community projects, such as Wikipedia. It is also a kind of prefiguration of what we are looking for with Web 2.0. The next step will be to get these tools developed by the Wikipedia community itself, or similar communities.Thanks for getting started. Orientation tools are or should be dynamic and sustainable community tools, on earth, in the air, and in the domain of human knowledge.
Prof. Charles H. Davis
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University at Bloomington
Thanks very much for sharing your ideas. I don't pretend to be the philosopher/historian you are, but I'm grateful for the chance to see how you organize things. You are applying 21st century techniques to the ancient craft of organizing knowledge. I admire both the colorful graphics and your courage.
Dr. Henry Gladney
did take a quick peek at your Main Classes diagram, and noticed that
the first box within each class was "Theory". Leads to a
consider transmogrifying this classification into a rectangular array
or as close to that as can be achieved without serious
I.e., with each row being composed of similarly labeled
boxes. A very
crude first stab at the row labels is:
Zins: I do like the '4 row' model. In fact, in Pillar 1
you there is a similar structure.
my book2, I intend to pay careful attention to questions of subjective
distinctions in contrast to objective assertions
Thinking about this leads to the following reactions.
Implicit in my following comments is some uncertainty about how much
analysis/debate is, in fact, interesting and/or useful.
("Interesting", of course, is purely subjective. "Useful", in
contrast, is a judgment relative to what one is trying to
accomplish--and neither you nor I have made that clear in the
conversation of the moment. (Two of my playmates have "voted"
discussion interests them.))
Chaim Zins: I invite our colleagues to comment. Thanks (May 2009)Dr. Luis Gutierrez
The Pelican Web
The January 2007 "website of the month" is Map of Human Knowledge by Dr. Chaim Zins, Knowledge Mapping Research, Israel. This website provides excellent guidance for the design of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). I am grateful to Dr. Zins for bringing his work to my attention. The subject matter of the website is knowledge organization, and researching this website has been instrumental in formulating our own knowledge organization model for this research project, as reported in section 7 of this issue.Zins' model focuses on organizing knowledge to support research. In a web-based KOS, the bibliographic elements to be organized are URL links. This requires that links to websites with related content be located in close proximity is the links directory. While reviewing information in a given website, the researcher is thereby reminded of other websites that provide "knowledge context." The value of context is augmented by adding hyperlinks to all the websites, so that the reader is invited to navigate back and forth between the websites in a given knowledge neighborhood after the researcher is in the neighborhood. The value of a KOS is in guiding the researcher to the right neighborhood.
Adding hyperlinks is mechanical. The real challenge is to design a taxonomy of knowledge neighborhoods that separates unrelated knowledge domains and nests together knowledge that is closely related. This is easier said than done, and there is no such thing as taxonomy of knowledge that is adequate for the needs of all researchers all the time. The knowledge architecture proposed by Zins is among the best I have seen. His Portal to Human Knowledge is structured around ten pillars of knowledge pertaining to four phenomena amenable to exploration and gathering of human knowledge. The scope of knowledge under each of the ten pillars is explained here.
This map of knowledge is a breakthrough in knowledge organization. The correspondence between phenomena that can be known and the ten pillars is impeccable. The color codes are helpful, and the pillar definitions on the right hand column are simple, precise, and accurate. The images, on the other hand, are expendable (in my opinion). Granted that "a picture is worth a thousand words," no picture can capture all the angles of knowledge contained in any given pillar (or subdivision thereof), and for some they may be an unnecessary distraction. For instance, the image for pillar  represents the Inquisition tribunal challenging Galileo's contribution to knowledge, a contribution that certainly went against "the philosophical, historical, sociological, methodological, and the mediating perspectives of human knowledge" of his time. When you click on the image, a bigger image is shown without further explanation. The value of the images might be enhanced if the enlarged images were to provide a concise explanation of how the art represents the textual definition, albeit without exhausting the possibilities. ... For the full article see the January 2007 Website of the Month.
Prof. Glynn Harmon
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, The University of Texas at Austin
You have a very impressive site--one that reminds me of the works of Edward Tufte--but yours is more directed, since it represents all knowledge over time rather than selected events or things. The graphics are very appealing.
The main thing I can suggest at this point is that organization of knowledge remains very much caught up in controversy about whether knowledge has a fixed character of its own, which remains to be realized or discovered by human or other agent minds (Platonic view) or whether knowledge organization is something very much in the eye of the beholder, or something set up to serve a purpose for a time (empiricist or realist view?).
Anyhow, full speed ahead!
Chaim Zins: These issues will be discussed in the forum.
You write: "The ideal knowledge map should meet three conditions. First, its categories are mutually exclusive, meaning they do not overlap. Second, the categories are collectively exhaustive, meaning that together they compose all the relevant categories. Third, the map can represent all the relevant items without exception. This means that the ideal map of human knowledge can represent all fields of knowledge; that is, every field of knowledge belongs to at least one category of the map. (from my coming book)."
My question is how do you reconcile the second condition with the fact that new categories of knowledge may emerge over time? Would not an extensive knowledge map be more ideal? (January 1, 2012)
Chaim Zins: Human knowledge is constantly growing. Therefore, the structure of 10PK may be changed over time.
In every level of the hierarchical structure all the categories should meet the three conditions. A classification system is evaluated by the three, or rather four conditions: exclusivity, exhaustiveness, adequacy, and redundancy (not being redundent).
Please note that the book was published. It was first presented on October 23, 2011 at the XII ENANCIB annual conference, the National Museum of Brazil, Brasilia.
Mr. Arthur Murphy
Web Services Leader, General Libraries, Emory University
I saw your “Knowledge 2006: Map of Human Knowledge”. Quite interesting. And, in a sense, heroic. You may be familiar with a classic article on the hierarchy challenge in a 1996 issues of Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired
"In 1668, the English philosopher John Wilkins presented a universal classification scheme to London's Royal Society. The scheme neatly divided all of reality into 40 root categories, including "things; called transcendental," "discourse," and "beasts." These categories were further divided into subgenuses (whole-footed beasts and cloven-footed beasts, for example), and each was carefully documented with examples. Wilkins's eagerly awaited proposal was immediately published and distributed throughout Europe."
Even Google has tried a classification (http://www.google.com/dirhp). Quite different, of course. And, not at all like yours. I would be interested to see how much consensus there is in developing a universal hierarchy. A noble goal.
Like Prof. Glynn Harmon, I wish you full speed ahead."
Ms. Grazyna Nawrocka
I do suspect that in different countries hierarchy of sciences vary. I would expect that India might organize their knowledge/sciences quite differently, and religions other than Roman Catholic might interpret/percive "supernatural" as closer to reality that our Polish culture does. (May 2009)
Chaim Zins: Ms. Grazyna Nawrocka translated the 10 Pillars map into Polish. See More comments on the Polish version...
Your system will be scrutinized from the point of view of putting "apples with apples and oranges with oranges." There are some sciences missing from your map, and small entities are placed on top of classification, like therapies, while a big ones are not mentioned, or placed in wrong place. (June 2009)
10 Pillars differs from other maps by several essential elements, among
them the distinction between categories of the map
and fields of
knowledge. Medicine is a field of knowledge. It is not a category of
the map. "Health and wellbeing" is the relevant category for placing
Medicine. One can disagree on the place of medicine in the map, but
this does not mean that the map is not consistent.
Links: 1, 2, 3
I wish you well with your project, and would like to offer a suggestion. To what end do you wish your project to achieve, for if you want it to be a computational benefit to the world, and use data mining and analytics to map knowledge with metrics together to model and help solve some of the worlds problems, I would like to suggest that you incorporate some thing like DDC notation, because using a 10 base digit system, works best with the modelling systems available at this time. (February 2, 2009)
My vision for the last 10 plus years, is to educate people in the idea that all human knowledge is already represented in a library classification system, and by using a library classification framework, as a knowledge framework, and using metrics as a distance measure, it becomes possible to map human decision making, and this can then be replicated in a more simple way by artificial intelligence and computation applications. One way I explain it is to imagine a library, then think of a recent decision you have made, then we are going to link all the different relevant knowledge areas with pieces of string, and the colour and length of the string is proportional to that pieces of knowledge on the decision making process. Then you can stand back, or use a different person’s decision on the same topic, and look at the differences.
This type of methodology could then be applied with data mining and analytics, on a decision making dataset, and you could then start to model knowledge usage, by people, etc.
Hence, why I said earlier that if your knowledge pilar project can use a decimal notation system like DDC, then you can lend your knowledge framework to other uses. (February 4, 2009)Mr. Kyoko Oki
I am writing in response to your call for support regarding the translation of the Map of Human Knowledge and its rationale... I am a native Japanese speaker, and it would be honourable for me to translate this great work into Japanese. To briefly introduce myself, my name is Kyoko Oki. I am interested in analysing knowledge as an asset for socio-economic development, and came across your homepage (http://www.success.co.il/index.html) when trying to understand how human knowledge is organised... (May 2009)
Chaim Zins: I will be Honored.
I am personally interested in how this map might evolve in future when more and more interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary or crossdisciplinary) work is done. I could imagine such work makes the pillar taller (as a result of the emergence of a new field) and shorter (as a result of the existing field merged into another existing one), but what if such work had, for example, two main focuses (say, the natural environment and social development) and produced knowledge which is distributed almost equally between Pillar 4 (SPACE & EARTH) and Pillar7 (SOCIETY)? Would the two pillars be linked to each other in the map? Or, could it happen that a field of knowledge migrates from one pillar to the other as a result of such interdisciplinary work? These questions are very hypothetical, but I am very much curious about this map’s future form. (June, 2009).
Chaim Zins: Ms. Kyoko Oki translated the 10 Pillars map into Japanese. See More comments on the Japanese version...Dr. John F. Sowa
also like to make a few suggestions.
As you know, I have emphasized the theoretical and logical aspects of
ontologies, since those are necessary for the computer
also believe that it's important to relate the computer-oriented
ontologies to the more traditional resources designed for people.
Department o Library Science, Chiangmai University, Chiangmai, Thailand
A sincere thanks for your great contribution to the knowledge orgnization. I am very happy to surf through the portal. As a lecturer on knowledge classification, this is an innovation of the subject. I will go to the site regularly. (August, 1, 2008)
|中 文 English Français Deutsch עברית 日 本語 नेपाली Polski Português Română русский Српски Español More...|
a must for your library
Zins, Jerusalem, 2002-2013. All rights reserved.
Chaim Zins, Knowledge Mapping Research, 26 Hahaganah St. Jerusalem, 97852 tel: 972-2-5816705 firstname.lastname@example.org