Howarth, Lynne C.Olson, Hope A.2025-09-242025-09-242017Beghtol, Clare. 2003. Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between ‘Professional’ and ‘Naïve’ Classifications. Knowledge Organization 30: 64-73. Beghtol, Clare. 1986. Semantic Validity: Concepts of Warrant in Bibliographic Classification Systems. Library Resources & Technical Services, 30(2): 109-125. Cutter, Charles A. 1904. \rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Design Thinking for Libraries. http://designthinkingforlibraries.com/ LibraryThing 2016. https://www.librarything.com/ Accessed 15 May, 2016. Olson, Hope A. 2002. The Power to Name: Locating the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Olson, Hope A., and Howarth, Lynne C. 2013. A Space of Transition: Rethinking Surrogates. In Transition Cultures, Transition KO: Evolving Exploration, Critical Reflection, and Practical Work: Proceedings of the 4th North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2013), June 13-14, 2013, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Shirky, Clay. 2005. Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags. http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html Accessed 15 May, 2016.https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/6207The “old world” of subject access emphasized compliance with standards for content and structure directed at achieving consistency. Increasingly, as epistemic perspectives have moved away from positivist to post-positivist, and constructivist worldviews, the rationale for Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) designed from the top down has come under scrutiny. In such a shifting landscape, what can we do when we find ourselves in want of principles? Building on the conference focus of using connections between traditional and newer methods to take advantage of new opportunities, this conceptual paper re-examines theoretical underpinnings of subject access and, using design thinking approaches, looks at current applications in order to determine what is usable, what could be respectfully borrowed and adapted, and what needs to be considered and/or developed de novo?enAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Articlehttps://2016.ifla.org/programme/satellite-meetingsopen accessDesign thinkingknowledge organization systemssubject access principlessocial taggingmeaning-making