What are the points of a classification? I submit that there are
several. And only ONE of them requires the kind of compact notation that
Bernhard assumes--shelf order. Certainly, as long as we need to put
books on shelves (and I think this will be for a long long time) we will
need a shelf order. and so long as we need a shelf order, it serves us
well to put like books together (recognizing that books can be like and
unlike in many differnet ways, along many differnet axes--but we still
need to pick just one for a shelf order. Just because that's the way the
physical world works, no problem).
This is all true, and just the way it is.
but in fact, we want and NEED a classification (NOT just tagging, but a:
_controlled_ vocabulary; of subject, disciplinary, and genre
characteristics; with relations between terms of hiearchy, association,
and possibly other relation types---that is, a classification)--for
reasons other than shelf order. These reasons include but are not
limited to:
* Bringing like things together in multiple ways in a interface that is
not the shelf.
* Allowing people to understand what is in a large corpus, or large
result set, by categorizing it in sets--to get a 'lay of the land'.
* To find more things like a thing already found
* To narrow or broaden one's search when one realizes that one needs
more focused or more general materials.
None of these purposes, in and of themselves, in fact require a
notation suitable for shelf ordering. What DO they require, especially
when we are trying to fulfill these purposes in a digital interface?
What sorts of interfaces might we want to present to users, and what
_formal features_ of a classificatory controlled vocabulary assist or
get in the way of providing them?
This is what we need to discover, by emperical research as well as
intellecutal analysis.
LCC or Dewey (or LCSH) are not the end of hte road. They are the
beginning. They were designed for an environment we are no longer
constrained to. We can do more. What can we do that's more with these
existing systems? What might we WISH to do, but these existing systems
wont' let us do in a reasonable systmetic way (becuase if you aren't
oging ot be systematic and reasonagbly consistent--then you might as
well just be using tagging, indeed)? This is what we need to discover.
Jonathan
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> 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
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Jun 06 2007 - 20:27:46 EDT