Document (#28741)

Editor: Marcella, R. u. A. Maltby
Title: ¬The future of classification
Imprint: Aldershot : Gower
Year: 2000
Pages: 160 S
Isbn: 0-566-07992-5
Content: Enthält die Beiträge: HUNTER, E.: Do we still need classification; MALTBY, A. u. R. MARCELLA: Organizing knowledge: the need for system and unity; WARNER, J.: Can classification yield an evaluative principle for information retrieval?; NEWTON, R.: Information technoloyg and new directions; MacLENNAN, A.: Classification and the Internet; FOSKETT, A.C.: The future of facetted classification; MITCHELL, J.S.: The Dewey Decimal Classification in the twenty-first century; McILWAINE, I.C.: UDC in the twenty-first century; CHAN, L.M. u. T.L. HODGES: The Library of Congress Classification; SATIJA, M.P.: Sources of investigating the development of bibliographic classification
Footnote: Rez. in: Journal of librarianship and information science 32(2000) no.4, S.218-219 (K.G. Bakewell); JASIST 53(2002) no.1, S.57 (B. Hjoerland): "Overall, the book is a disappointment, and points to problems in library and information science (LIS) as a research field. Classification is often regarded as one of the core subdisciplines of the field and as one of the core qualifications of library and information professionals. Nevertheless, no classification researchers (not even S.R. Ranganathan or Jack Mills-and none of the authors in the book under review) are visible in bibliometric maps of LIS (e.g., White & McCain, 1998)! One of the problems in this book is that it fails to define classification and to distinguish between different kinds of classification. By only considering systems like Dewey, LC and facetted classifications, it fail to consider, for example, bibliometric approaches in LIS as kinds of classifications and thus to consider the basic strength and weakness of different methods of classification. In computer science the term "ontologies" is very popular, and can be considered a modern development in classification research. Vickery (1997) made a useful introduction to this research, but it is not considered in the present book. I have a feeling that most of the authors in this book (and other "classification researchers" as well) are more or less implicitly working from the presumption that classification is about printed documents, and certainly not full-text electronic retrieval. I am, of course, aware that some of the chapters in the book do explicitly consider the Internet and electronic retrieval. However, if the electronic environment is to be considered, one needs to compare the relative strength and weakness of all kinds of subject access points (cf., Hjorland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). One has to consider what utility-if any-classification codes can have in relation to all other kinds of access points. If what is considered "classification" is not considered in relation to the electronic challenge, it is in my opinion reduced to something of minor importance. In Chapter 3, Julian Warner actually does take a step toward considering inherent weaknesses in current approaches to Information Retrieval (IR), and this chapter is, in my view, the best one. I think he is right in making the point that the IR tradition has built on the assumption that the system should provide a set of records that satisfy a query. What an IR system, in his view, should do is enlarge the users' capacity for informed choice between the representation of objects in the given universe of discourse. "Such an enhanced capacity for informed choice broadly corresponds to exploratory capability. It should also be regarded as analogous to a sense of cognitive control over, or ability to discriminate between, representations of objects" (p. 36). His basic idea is not much unfolded in the present chapter, but I think his line of research looks promising.
Again, however, the capacity of different forms of classification of contributing to such discriminatory powers should be considered relative to other kinds of subject access (cf., Hjorland & Kyllesbech Nielsen, 2001). In recent years the methods of classification and more generally knowledge organization has been reconsidered. Hjorland & Albrechtsen (1999) claimed that the four basic methods are, respectively, empiristic, rationalistic, historicist, and pragmatic. If one uses, for example bibliometric methods, one applies an empiricist method. The best representatives of the rationalist method are the facetted classifications. An important example of historicist methods are given in Hjorland (2000), considering the classification of the social sciences. An unfolded comparison of all methods used in one domain is given in Hjorland (1998). In my view, the future of classification is connected to a combination of these four methods of classification and to the further clarification of strong and weak aspects of different methods and systems. - Unfortunately, these issues are not addressed in the book, as it fails to answer the fundamental questions about the future of classification in LIS."
Weitere Rez in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 25(2001) H.1, S.104-105 (A. Müller-Dreier)

Similar documents (content)

Studwell, W.E.; Wang, R.; Wu, H.: Ideological influences on book classification schemes in the People's Republic of China (1994) 1.06

1.0586455 = sum of:
  1.0586455 = sum of:
    0.66135657 = weight(abstract_txt:classification in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.66135657 = score(doc=900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.6626694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.9980188 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.39728895 = weight(abstract_txt:future in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39728895 = score(doc=900,freq=1.0), product of:
        0.74891204 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0630825 = boost
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.53048813 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
            1.0 = termFreq=1.0
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=900)

Mitchell, J.S.: DDC21 and beyond : the Dewey Decimal Classification prepares for the future (1995) 1.01

1.012111 = sum of:
  1.012111 = sum of:
    0.49601743 = weight(abstract_txt:classification in 5564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.49601743 = score(doc=5564,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.6626694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.7485141 = fieldWeight in 5564, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5564)
    0.5160935 = weight(abstract_txt:future in 5564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5160935 = score(doc=5564,freq=3.0), product of:
        0.74891204 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0630825 = boost
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.6891243 = fieldWeight in 5564, product of:
          1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
            3.0 = termFreq=3.0
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5564)

Williamson, N.J.: Classification in the Millennium (1997) 0.97

0.97004044 = sum of:
  0.97004044 = sum of:
    0.5727515 = weight(abstract_txt:classification in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5727515 = score(doc=612,freq=3.0), product of:
        0.6626694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.8643096 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
            3.0 = termFreq=3.0
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.39728895 = weight(abstract_txt:future in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39728895 = score(doc=612,freq=1.0), product of:
        0.74891204 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0630825 = boost
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.53048813 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
            1.0 = termFreq=1.0
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=612)

Pocock, H.: Classification schemes : development and survival (1997) 0.97

0.97004044 = sum of:
  0.97004044 = sum of:
    0.5727515 = weight(abstract_txt:classification in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5727515 = score(doc=762,freq=3.0), product of:
        0.6626694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.8643096 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
            3.0 = termFreq=3.0
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
    0.39728895 = weight(abstract_txt:future in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39728895 = score(doc=762,freq=1.0), product of:
        0.74891204 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0630825 = boost
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.53048813 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
            1.0 = termFreq=1.0
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)

Gopinath, M.A.: Research in classification : a pointer towards knowledge representation (1998) 0.95

0.954136 = sum of:
  0.954136 = sum of:
    0.6561693 = weight(abstract_txt:classification in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.6561693 = score(doc=2251,freq=7.0), product of:
        0.6626694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.990191 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
          2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
            7.0 = termFreq=7.0
          3.9920752 = idf(docFreq=2218, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)
    0.29796672 = weight(abstract_txt:future in 2251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29796672 = score(doc=2251,freq=1.0), product of:
        0.74891204 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0630825 = boost
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.16599622 = queryNorm
        0.3978661 = fieldWeight in 2251, product of:
          1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
            1.0 = termFreq=1.0
          4.243905 = idf(docFreq=1724, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2251)