{"@context":{"@vocab":"https://cir.nii.ac.jp/schema/1.0/","rdfs":"http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#","dc":"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/","dcterms":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","prism":"http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/2.0/","cinii":"http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ns/1.0/","datacite":"https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4/","ndl":"http://ndl.go.jp/dcndl/terms/","jpcoar":"https://github.com/JPCOAR/schema/blob/master/2.0/"},"@id":"https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1360581247553299072.json","@type":"Article","productIdentifier":[{"identifier":{"@type":"DOI","@value":"10.1108/jd-04-2018-0054"}},{"identifier":{"@type":"URI","@value":"https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2018-0054/full/xml"}},{"identifier":{"@type":"URI","@value":"https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2018-0054/full/html"}}],"dc:title":[{"@value":"Mentefacts as a missing level in theory of information science"}],"description":[{"type":"abstract","notation":[{"@value":"<jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>The current debate between two theoretical approaches in library and information science and knowledge organization (KO), the cognitive one and the sociological one, is addressed in view of their possible integration in a more general model. The paper aims to discuss these issues.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title><jats:p>Personal knowledge of individual users, as focused in the cognitive approach, and social production and use of knowledge, as focused in the sociological approach, are reconnected to the theory of levels of reality, particularly in the versions of Nicolai Hartmann and Karl R. Popper (three worlds). The notions of artefact and mentefact, as proposed in anthropological literature and applied in some KO systems, are also examined as further contributions to the generalized framework. Some criticisms to these models are reviewed and discussed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Findings</jats:title><jats:p>Both the cognitive approach and the sociological approach, if taken in isolation, prove to be cases of philosophical monism as they emphasize a single level over the others. On the other hand, each of them can be considered as a component of a pluralist ontology and epistemology, where individual minds and social communities are but two successive levels in knowledge production and use, and are followed by a further level of “objectivated spirit”; this can in turn be analyzed into artefacts and mentefacts. While all these levels are relevant to information science, mentefacts and their properties are its most peculiar objects of study, which make it distinct from such other disciplines as psychology and sociology.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Originality/value</jats:title><jats:p>This analysis shows how existing approaches can benefit from additional notions contributed by levels theory, to develop more complete and accurate models of information and knowledge phenomena.</jats:p></jats:sec>"}]}],"creator":[{"@id":"https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1380581247553299072","@type":"Researcher","foaf:name":[{"@value":"Claudio Gnoli"}]}],"publication":{"publicationIdentifier":[{"@type":"PISSN","@value":"00220418"}],"prism:publicationName":[{"@value":"Journal of Documentation"}],"dc:publisher":[{"@value":"Emerald"}],"prism:publicationDate":"2018-08-13","prism:volume":"74","prism:number":"6","prism:startingPage":"1226","prism:endingPage":"1242"},"reviewed":"false","dc:rights":["https://www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies"],"url":[{"@id":"https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2018-0054/full/xml"},{"@id":"https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2018-0054/full/html"}],"createdAt":"2018-08-13","modifiedAt":"2025-07-24","relatedProduct":[{"@id":"https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390013265112804736","@type":"Article","resourceType":"学術雑誌論文(journal article)","relationType":["isReferencedBy"],"jpcoar:relatedTitle":[{"@language":"en","@value":"Hjørland’s Domain Analysis and Ontology: A Comparison with Putnam’s and Gabriel’s Ontologies"},{"@language":"ja","@value":"Hjørlandのドメイン分析と存在論: Putnam及びGabrielの存在論との比較"}]},{"@id":"https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390852327911011072","@type":"Article","relationType":["isReferencedBy"],"jpcoar:relatedTitle":[{"@language":"en","@value":"Ontological Conflict in Library and Information Science"},{"@language":"ja","@value":"図書館情報学における存在論の対立"},{"@value":"図書館情報学における存在論の対立 : Gnoliの存在論的複数主義とHjørlandの存在論的一元論の比較"}]}],"dataSourceIdentifier":[{"@type":"CROSSREF","@value":"10.1108/jd-04-2018-0054"},{"@type":"CROSSREF","@value":"10.46895/lis.87.47_references_DOI_TB3CGqvRcv6R6HlUzqEGyFtMyPa"},{"@type":"CROSSREF","@value":"10.46895/lis.84.1_references_DOI_TB3CGqvRcv6R6HlUzqEGyFtMyPa"}]}