Features, Functions and Components of a Library Classification System in the LIS Tradition for the E-Environment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Review Paper JISTaP http://www.jistap.org J. of infosci. theory and practice 3(4): 62-77, 2015 Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2015.3.4.5 Features, Functions and Components of a Library Classification System in the LIS tradition for the e-Environment M P Satija Daniel Martínez-Ávila * Guru Nanak Dev University São Paulo State University Amritsar—143005 India Hygino Muzzi Filho 737 17525-900 Marilia, Brazil Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper describes qualities of a library classification system that are commonly discussed in the LIS tradition and literature, and explains such a system’s three main functions, namely knowledge mapping, information retrieval, and shelf arrangement. In this vein, the paper states the functional requirements of bibliographic classifications, which broadly are subject collocation and facilitation of browsing the collection. It explains with details the com- ponents of a library classification system and their functions. The major components are schedules, notations, and index. It also states their distinguished features, such as generalia class, form divisions, book numbers, and devices for number synthesis which are not required in a knowledge classification. It illustrates with examples from the WebDewey good examples of added features of an online library classification system. It emphasizes that institu- tional backup and a revision machinery are essential for a classification to survive and remain relevant in the print and e-environment. Keywords: Book numbers, Classification, Classification policy, Knowledge classification, Library classification, Online classification, WebDewey Open Access Accepted date: October 29, 2015 All JISTaP content is Open Access, meaning it is accessible online Received date: April 27, 2015 to everyone, without fee and authors’ permission. All JISTaP content is published and distributed under the terms of the *Corresponding Author: Daniel Martínez-Ávila Creative Commons Attribution License (http:/ creativecommons. Assistant Professor org/licenses/by/3.0/). Under this license, authors reserve the São Paulo State University copyright for their content; however, they permit anyone to Hygino Muzzi Filho 737 17525-900 Marilia, Brazil unrestrictedly use, distribute, and reproduce the content in any Email: [email protected] medium as far as the original authors and source are cited. For any reuse, redistribution, or reproduction of a work, users must clarify the license terms under which the work was produced. ⓒ M P Satija, Daniel Martínez-Ávila, 2015 62 Features, Functions and Components of a Library Classification System 1. PREFACE catalogs and other information retrieval tools such as bibliographies. A modern library classification is more Categorization and classification are methods used than knowledge classification, and beyond grouping by humans to organize entities, thoughts, objects, and it has many intellectual and mechanical functions to phenomena. These processes are related to the organi- perform. Since their modern origin in the 1870s, many zation of knowledge and the way people learn, remem- library classification systems have been designed to ber, and know about the world. There is a basic human organize and access knowledge in libraries. drive to categorize as it allows people to make useful assumptions about new things by making compari- 2.1. General and Special Classifications sons with well-known things. In common language, A library classification may be general or special in the terms classification and categorization are not coverage of subject areas. A general classification cov- clearly distinguished, as for instance, dictionaries use ers all subjects in the universe of knowledge. A special both terms indistinctly. However, in Library and Infor- classification concentrates on a narrower range of top- mation Science (LIS) some make the distinction (e.g. ics, or the goods manufactured or services provided by Taylor & Joudrey, 2009, p. 376): “Categorization can the organization for which the classification has been be seen as amorphous or less well-defined grouping; developed. A special classification also refers to a clas- whereas classification can be viewed as a comprehen- sification of documents by form such as government sive hierarchical structure for organizing information reports, fiction, maps, or music. Such a classification is resources on linear shelves.” In this context, classifica- for micro-documents and in-depth subjects. tions or modern bibliographic classifications emerged The taxonomy of the different types of classification in the late 1800s and early 1900s to handle early stages has been expanded and systematized by Koch et al. of the print revolution, i.e., to organize, store, and (1997) as follows: universal schemes, national general retrieve bibliographic materials. In light of the prolif- schemes, subject specific schemes, and home-grown eration and use of simple categorization systems and schemes. Universal schemes are intended to classify classifications in physical and electronic environments, the entire universe of human knowledge for use by such as the use of BISAC (Book Industry Standards anyone, anywhere. Examples are the Universal Dec- and Communications) and other verbal categories in imal Classification (UDC), the Colon Classification libraries and websites such as Amazon and Google (CC), the Bliss bibliographic classification (BC), the Books, we are reviewing and systematizing the fea- Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and the Library tures, functions, and components of library classifica- of Congress Classification (LCC). National general tion systems, according to the LIS literature and tra- schemes are universal in subject coverage, but intend- dition of authors such as Ranganathan, that should be ed for use in a single country. Examples are the Ned- considered or at least known in the design and choice erlandse Basisclassificatie (BC), the Sveriges Allmáma of classifications for these new environments. Biblioteksfórening (SAB), and the Nippon Dewey. This category may also include translated versions of the DDC in various languages incorporating provisions 2. LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS for the classification of local material. Subject specific schemes are designed for use by a particular subject A classification is a tool for the organization of the community or domain. Examples are the National phenomena of the universe or any of its parts or con- Library of Medicine (NLM) scheme for medicine, stituents. It groups objects into categories/classes based Iconclass for art resources, Moy’s Law Classification, on shared properties with the purpose of bringing like and the London Education Classification, among items together. A modern library classification is a many others. Home-grown schemes are those devised classification of knowledge as it is contained in docu- for use in a particular service or retrieval system or ments of all sorts. It came into being for the purpose in a library. Examples are Yahoo!’s categories and of arranging and retrieving information resources. reader-interest classifications. There is an abundance In libraries, later, it was used for arranging classified of homemade library classifications, but these do not 63 http://www.jistap.org JISTaP Vol.3 No.4, 62-77 survive long in the era of standardized systems. scientifically sound systems, arguably more complex On the other hand, although the idea of special or and grounded than the previous three (see for instance subject specific classifications presupposes a greater Ranganathan, 1967). However, they have not been im- level of detail, some general classifications, notably plemented and used as widely as the DDC and UDC the UDC, LCC, and BC-2 (Bliss bibliographic clas- due to lack of editorial support or a more aggressive sification, second edition) have been developed in marketing of institutions such as OCLC (Online Com- sufficient depth of details to enable them to be adapted puter Library Center). The BSO and ICC are not shelf to moderately special collections. Thus, the debate be- classifications, whereas the fate of the Russian BBK is tween special and general classification is inconclusive. not known. The rest, namely EC, SC, BC, and RIC, are Ranganathan visualized his Colon Classification as a now only of historical interest. trunk of an elephant: nimble enough to pick up a small Over the years, the features of these classifications twig and strong enough to carry a heavy log of wood have evolved and with experience been standardized. (Ranganathan, 1964). The Library of Congress Classi- A library classification is a system having mutually fication, with its 21 main classes in 29 parts bound in related components or subsystems with the objective 50 volumes, is de facto a confederate of special classifi- of organizing knowledge in libraries. It has its anato- cations. The UDC, in its (now ceased) full edition, was my (hardware) showing its visible and invisible com- issued in series of fascicules suitable for information ponents, each of which has its supporting functions centers and special collections. (physiology). Some of the main general classification systems are: • Dewey Decimal Classification (1876+) / by Melvil 2.2. Functional Requirements of Dewey Bibliographic Classifications • Universal Decimal Classification (1905+) / FID It has been claimed that modern bibliographical (International Federation