By analyzing the way vernacular Korean poetry of the 1920s was produced, this article initiates a study of the sociology of Korean literary production. Based on a survey of forty-five vernacular Korean books of poetry produced between 1921 and 1929, bank records, Japanese colonial government records, and printed interviews, the study describes the people, organizations, and technologies involved in the production of vernacular Korean poetry in the early twentieth century. It suggests that a small number of men in a few printing facilities working within restrained typographic conditions were responsible for printing the extant corpus of Korean vernacular poetry from the 1920s. An overview of the creative ways in which poetry was expressed visually and a discussion of the poem “Pandal” (Half moon), which appears differently in the two originary alternate issues of Kim So-wŏl’s canonical 1925 work Chindallaekkot (Azaleas), make it clear that an understanding of these people and organizations, as well as of the technologies they employed, should inform how we approach texts from this period hermeneutically. Keywords: Korean poetry, sociology of texts, printing, typography, Kim So-wŏl

The International Conference on Cataloging Principles (Paris, 1961) led to wide acceptance of Seymour Lubetzky's distinction between books and works, where books denoted particular physical objects and works concerned conceptual abstractions associated with the creative labor of particular authors. Lubetzky's formulation of works is included in many of the world's cataloging frameworks, including the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Several conceptual and practical difficulties arise from the widespread adoption of Lubetzkian works in practices associated with knowledge organization. However, FRBR and other knowledge organization frameworks that utilize works as central entities could be made more useable and useful if work, as an organizing principle, were de-emphasized and seen as one among many concepts used for aggregating sets and supersets of objects according to how likely they are to be useful to users of knowledge organization tools like catalogs.

Purpose—The purpose of this paper is to provide a new and useful formulation of relevance. Design/methodology/approach—This paper is formulated as a conceptual argument. It makes the case for the utility of considering relevance to be function of use in creative processes. Findings—There are several corollaries to formulating relevance as a function of use. These include the idea that objects by themselves cannot be relevant since use assumes interaction; the affordances of objects and how they are perceived can affect what becomes relevant but are not in themselves relevant; relevance is not an essential characteristic of objects; relevance is transient; potential relevance (what might be relevant in the future) can be distinguished from what is relevant in use and from what has been relevant in the past. Originality/value—The paper shows that its new formulation of relevance brings improved conceptual and terminological clarity to the discourse about relevance in information science. It demonstrates that how relevance is articulated conceptually is important as its conceptualization can affect the ways that users are able to make use of information systems and, by extension, how information systems can facilitate or disable the co-production of creative outcomes. The paper also usefully expands investigative opportunities by suggesting relevance and creativity are interrelated.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a new and useful formulation of relevance. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is formulated as a conceptual argument. It makes the case for the utility of considering relevance to be function of use in creative processes. Findings: There are several corollaries to formulating relevance as a function of use. These include the idea that objects by themselves cannot be relevant since use assumes interaction; the affordances of objects and how they are perceived can affect what becomes relevant but are not in themselves relevant; relevance is not an essential characteristic of objects; relevance is transient; potential relevance (what might be relevant in the future) can be distinguished from what is relevant in use and from what has been relevant in the past. Originality/value: The paper shows that its new formulation of relevance brings improved conceptual and terminological clarity to the discourse about relevance in information science. It demonstrates that how relevance is articulated conceptually is important as its conceptualization can affect the ways that users are able to make use of information systems and, by extension, how information systems can facilitate or disable the co-production of creative outcomes. The paper also usefully expands investigative opportunities by suggesting relevance and creativity are interrelated.