Tim Spalding wrote:
>
> 1. The organization into tens is arbitrary and limiting. The "tree of
> knowledge" (if there is a tree) is on no better terms with ten than
> time is with twelve. These are arbitrary; Dewey uses tens to make
> numbers shorter and nothing else. Every level has a choice,
> Procrustean hilarity.
>
So, what might be a good number for the first level of a new
classification? If we agree, that is, that we need a new one.
Under 25? Then we might use a letter for a code.
More, up to 100 perhaps? Then a 2-digit-number might be appropriate.
(In the Netherlands and in Germany, the Dutch "Basisclassificatie"
is widely used. It has 89 main classes, each with less than 100
subclasses. Notations thus look like this:
54.72 Artificial Intelligence (54 = Computer Science)
(The level of detail is of course much less than Dewey, but its aim
is not to replace Dewey but to provide a broad categorization. It
can be useful to refine keyword searches or to arrange large
result sets into manageable chapters. The aim is not to sort the
world out but to arrange sets of documents.)
With this question sorted out, then what headlines (broad subject
categories) might be appropriate for our time and age?
I mean, why not take this on now and make an attempt to define
at least the top level of a new classification - if all existing
systems are as deficient as they appear to be. There must be
some approaches somewhere already - maybe even a good one.
Below the top level, there may be existing subject classifications
that could be re-used here. At least in some subjects, like
mathematics or physics.
B. Eversberg
Received on Tue Jun 05 2007 - 03:49:34 EDT