advertisement
On The Insider: Will You See The Dark Knight Again?
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
Thomson / Gale

Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval

Library Trends,  Wntr, 2004  by Jack Mills

<< Page 1  Continued from page 5.  Previous | Next

5. THE DESIGN OF A MODERN LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION

Two conceptual areas must be distinguished: general classifications covering all knowledge and special classifications restricted to a specific field. The significant developments in classification design claimed above refer primarily to the second area and will be considered in detail under that. Here, some distinctive features of a general classification are considered.

5.1. General classifications

advertisement

Remember that all special classifications need to draw on a more general one, often extensively. Another reason why IR cannot afford to ignore the concept of a general classification is that it alone can provide a bird's-eye view of the whole field of knowledge, offering a comprehensive context within which searches in a very large store can be framed. How the main classes (a loosely defined but reasonably well-understood concept) are handled within a general classification is the main theme of this paper. But whereas the central feature of the faceted special classification is its rigorous observance of the rules of logical division (see Sections 5.3/7), this cannot be said to apply initially to a general classification. If the first step in establishing what are loosely called its main classes were to be the division of the whole field of knowledge by applying explicit characteristics of division, the only feasible contenders would be of the nature of fundamental categories. The earliest and best-known set of such categories is seen in those advanced by Aristotle. Some of these are ostensibly feasible as constituting the initial divisions of the whole field of knowledge, e.g., substance, quantity, quality, place, time, and action. Such a first step has not been attempted by any of the general library classifications produced since Dewey's annus mirabilis in 1876, although something like it was attempted by the Subject Classification of the British librarian James Duff Brown (Brown, 1939/1906) with its quadruple division into Matter, Life, Mind, Record. Brown's scheme was notorious in its day for its subordination of music to sonics in physics--an example of its attempt to ignore disciplines as a primary level of division. What did emerge, with a relative unanimity that is not really surprising, was an initial division into main classes reflecting the division of labor--intellectual, imaginative, and practical. The division of labor is a fundamental feature of society, which is itself the producer of the knowledge in the records that are the objects of IR. It is manifested in every sphere of society, including academia as well as in the practical production of material wealth. The term "discipline" is frequently used to refer to these specialized fields, but is ambiguous insofar as a truly main class (e.g., the natural sciences) is usually susceptible to logical division into subclasses that are themselves known as disciplines.

The particular notion of the fundamental forms of knowledge that underpin main classes has received significant attention by Langridge (1976), who has drawn extensively on the work of a number of philosophers, particularly that of Hirst (1974) and of Phenix (1964) in the philosophy of education. Of particular significance is the distinction Langridge draws between the forms of knowledge on the one hand and the objects of knowledge (the phenomena they examine) on the other The order in which main classes might appear became a particular focus of attention in the work of Bliss (1929, 1933), and a modified form of the general order he advocated is considered in Section 5.2.