There is a basic concept that must be remembered by Library and Information Science scholars when debating if websites should be classified or left unclassified: it is that classification is based on a theory, which describes knowledge as a universe that is structured to flow from general to specific. For instance, a general subject such as music can become specific when we consider types of music, language of music, time period of music, etc. This flow of knowledge leads to information being classified regardless of how the information is manifested, i.e., books, e-journals, websites, and others.
To begin, a few related terms are defined:[1][1]
Classification - a logical system for the arrangement of knowledge.
Classifier - a person who applies a classification system to a body of knowledge or a collection of documents.
Controlled Vocabulary - in subject analysis and retrieval, the use of an authorized subset of the language as indexing terms.
Facet - a component (based on a particular characteristic) of a complex subject, e.g., geographic facet, language facet, literary form facet.
Literary Warrant – The concept that new notations are created for a classification
scheme and new terms are added to a controlled vocabulary only when information packets actually exist about new concepts.
Metadata - data about data.
PURLS (Persistent Uniform Resource Locator) - URL’s that do not change.
Theories of Classification
The grandfather theory of classification can be traced to Aristotle’s “classical theory of categories.” The foundation of the theory is the idea of common things being placed together. Therefore, hierarchical classification was created. A statement made by Lois Mai Chan, author of Cataloging and Classification, can illustrate the longevity of this theory[2][2],
“On the whole, the progression is from the general to the specific, forming a hierarchical, or “free,” structure, each class being a species of the class on the preceding level and a genus to the one below it.”
Of course, challenges to the classical theory surfaced. For example,
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “resemblance theory”, is based on similarity not categories. Or, Lotfi Zadeh’s “fuzzy set theory,” which suggest that some categories are defined, and some are not because it depends on the person who is observing the information. For instance, some website images are clearly defined because there is no distortion in the image but for images that are distorted; the cataloger must use his/her own perception of what the image suppose to be. However, the cataloged information may not be accurate because another cataloger may see the image differently. A similar theory to the fuzzy set is the “Prototype Theory,” which was created by Eleanor Rosch. These theories suggest that categories are defined by properties that are shared by all members. Therefore, no member is better than the other is. In addition, categories should be free from the catalogers’ biases.
Other theorist such as J.L. Austin who extended Wittgenstein’s work by adding words also challenged the classical theory. According to Arlene G. Taylor, author of The Organization of Knowledge,[3][3]
“He wondered why we call different things by the same name (e.g., foot of a mountain, foot of a list, person’s foot).”
While many theorists have brought fourth new ways for categorizing information, the classical theory remains widely used. It is this writer’s opinion that students and researchers would be best served if Internet information were arranged in a hierarchy consisting of common elements that are standardized.
[1][1] Lois Mai Chan, Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994) 482-484.
[2][2] Chan., 260.
[3][3] Arlene G. Taylor, The Organization of Knowledge (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1999) 174.
To begin, a few related terms are defined:[1][1]
Classification - a logical system for the arrangement of knowledge.
Classifier - a person who applies a classification system to a body of knowledge or a collection of documents.
Controlled Vocabulary - in subject analysis and retrieval, the use of an authorized subset of the language as indexing terms.
Facet - a component (based on a particular characteristic) of a complex subject, e.g., geographic facet, language facet, literary form facet.
Literary Warrant – The concept that new notations are created for a classification
scheme and new terms are added to a controlled vocabulary only when information packets actually exist about new concepts.
Metadata - data about data.
PURLS (Persistent Uniform Resource Locator) - URL’s that do not change.
Theories of Classification
The grandfather theory of classification can be traced to Aristotle’s “classical theory of categories.” The foundation of the theory is the idea of common things being placed together. Therefore, hierarchical classification was created. A statement made by Lois Mai Chan, author of Cataloging and Classification, can illustrate the longevity of this theory[2][2],
“On the whole, the progression is from the general to the specific, forming a hierarchical, or “free,” structure, each class being a species of the class on the preceding level and a genus to the one below it.”
Of course, challenges to the classical theory surfaced. For example,
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “resemblance theory”, is based on similarity not categories. Or, Lotfi Zadeh’s “fuzzy set theory,” which suggest that some categories are defined, and some are not because it depends on the person who is observing the information. For instance, some website images are clearly defined because there is no distortion in the image but for images that are distorted; the cataloger must use his/her own perception of what the image suppose to be. However, the cataloged information may not be accurate because another cataloger may see the image differently. A similar theory to the fuzzy set is the “Prototype Theory,” which was created by Eleanor Rosch. These theories suggest that categories are defined by properties that are shared by all members. Therefore, no member is better than the other is. In addition, categories should be free from the catalogers’ biases.
Other theorist such as J.L. Austin who extended Wittgenstein’s work by adding words also challenged the classical theory. According to Arlene G. Taylor, author of The Organization of Knowledge,[3][3]
“He wondered why we call different things by the same name (e.g., foot of a mountain, foot of a list, person’s foot).”
While many theorists have brought fourth new ways for categorizing information, the classical theory remains widely used. It is this writer’s opinion that students and researchers would be best served if Internet information were arranged in a hierarchy consisting of common elements that are standardized.
[1][1] Lois Mai Chan, Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994) 482-484.
[2][2] Chan., 260.
[3][3] Arlene G. Taylor, The Organization of Knowledge (Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1999) 174.
No comments:
Post a Comment