Multilingual Dictionary of Knowledge Management

Citation

Hare, C. (2002), "Multilingual Dictionary of Knowledge Management", Library Management, Vol. 23 No. 4/5, pp. 259-260. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm.2002.23.4_5.259.1

People who compile dictionaries are to be admired and all the more when the dictionary is multilingual and relates to subject matter that is newly developed and is continuing to evolve. The Multilingual Dictionary of Knowledge Management is therefore an ambitious project and represents a very welcome tool to support the global phenomenon of knowledge management which has marked the end of the second and the beginning of the third millennia.

It contains 3,400 entries and covers the vocabulary of knowledge management in five languages viz. English, French, Italian and Spanish. The prime arrangement is an alphabetical sequence in English with each entry giving the equivalent terms in the other four languages. In the majority of cases each term is also linked to one of the 13 “special subjects” or subject areas such as business applications, database technologies and knowledge engineering to provide additional guidance for the context in which the term can or should be used. The main sequence is complemented by four bilingual indexes in the other languages which take the user back to the English term.

Acronyms, of which there are many, are included in the main sequence and the indexes and there is a separate consolidated alphabetical list covering all of the languages at the end of the publication.

Synonyms are covered by directing the user to the preferred term and parts of speech are indicated by exception on the principle of only including them when the normal rules of each of the languages do not apply, as the author says “where their knowledge cannot be assumed”.

Given that it is not possible to read a dictionary, as would be the normal approach when reviewing a publication, I have therefore taken a different tactic. I currently teach units in knowledge management to both undergraduate and postgraduate students in information, communication and library management at the University of Northumbria so am familiar with the vocabulary of the subject area from the literature. This gave me a range of terms which I could use to “test” its coverage. I am a fluent French speaker and last year taught a course in knowledge management to students at a university institute in Paris so have experience of translating terms into French and of discussing terms with French colleagues. Finally I have consulted a practising knowledge manager to get her views about key terms and have checked for their inclusion and treatment.

Using these combined approaches it emerges that there are some notable omissions. The terms knowledge champion, best practice, know how and amazingly learning organisation and communities of practice do not appear. I expected all of these terms to appear but must add that the practitioner was not surprised at the omission of best practice and know how. Also there is no attempt to explain the key difference in the Romance languages between the two words for knowledge and the fact that, within the context of knowledge management, only one is used.

The system of synonyms can be both puzzling and frustrating. Why is implicit knowledge the preferred term for the key element tacit knowledge? In terms of frustration the user is directed from “HCI” to “human computer interface” only then to be sent to man machine interface to get the translated terms. The system of form of entry is not consistent. There are entries for “information broker” and “information brokerage” under both “i” and “b” but “key performance indicators” only appears under “k” and “p”. The term “document management” has two entries, one after the other and both with the same special subject, but the translations vary.

Of greater concern there are errors in the alphabetical sequence, for example, with graphical representation appearing after graph traversal. And it is difficult to imagine a potential user looking for the term “heaps of (unused) data”.

The points made above are irritating but can be tolerated. But I have two main criticisms. My greatest concern is the narrow interpretation of the concept of knowledge management. None of the special subjects cover the people dimension which is a definitive concept as it is people who have the knowledge. This oversight has reduced the range of terms included and in so doing compromised its use.

The second point is related in that, in the list of proposed users, I feel that the author has confirmed his own prejudice although there is no information about his background. It is surprising to see only documentalists listed as information professionals who might use the dictionary.

Overall, however, despite these concerns it is a useful tool, although its price of Euro 128 (£78) may restrict its purchase.