Traditional approaches to knowle

"Traditional approaches" to knowledge organization (KO)

What are here termed "traditional approaches" should be understood in contrast to the other approaches presented in the entry "approaches to knowledge organization".

In the present entry are the theory and methods of traditional library classifications like the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification discussed, but also systems developed for a single library (such as Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and UASK). Also systems developed for special bibliographies are considered (e.g. NLM, National Library of Medicine) The entry discusses thus approaches behind "enumerative systems" as opposed to, for example, faceted systems.

Enumerative systems include:

A. "Universal classification systems" and "special classifications",

B. "Discipline based classifications" and "phenomenon based classifications",

C. "One-dimensional systems" and two-dimensional and "multidimensional" schemes,

D. "Intellectual or scholarly" kinds like the LCC and "management oriented" kinds

like the DDC. Also intuitive approaches may be at play.

Concerning A

Most research and development of methodology about classification systems has addressed "universal systems". Such systems may be common for many libraries or may be hand-tailored for a specific collection. Systems developed for special libraries, for subject bibliographies and for large handbooks etc. should be equally considered. (It is a mistake to believe, for example, that only special schemes demands subject competencies). Many "universal" systems are in reality a number of special classifications put together. This is the case with, for example, LCC and Bliss (BC2).

In the tradition of facet-analysis has some research been made on the development of special schemes (e.g., Foskett, 1991 and Vickery, 1960). Ørom (2003) may be seen as contributing also to the understanding of special classifications from the perspective of domain-analysis. It is difficult, however, to find research about special classifications from "traditional approaches". One example of such a system is the NLM (the classification used by the National Library of Medicine in Washington, DC). An example of a review of a special classification system is given by Kolding Nielsen (1977, pp. 566-591) who presents and evaluates the classification system used in the Danish historical bibliography (in Danish).

For other kinds of KOS is the situation different. Research on thesauri is almost exclusively based on special thesauri.

Concerning B

Among the "traditional approaches" to classification in Library and Information Science (LIS) have the dominant tendency been to base the classification on disciplines. This is, for example, the case with the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). For an argument for this basis, see the quote from Mills & Broughton (1977) in the entry Aspect classification.

Other systems among "the traditional approaches", such as Bendtsen and Brown have chosen to avoid disciplines and to collocate "concrete subjects" (also termed phenomenon based classification, entity classifications or "one place classification"). See further in the entry on phenomenon based classifications.

Concerning C

Systems designed for shelving purposes have to be linear or one-dimensional. As long as systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification are designed to serve both information retrieval in catalogs as well as shelving purposes, they have to be one dimensional. This puts major constrains on such systems, which probably means that multidimensional systems are much more efficient for retrieval purposes. See the quote from Ziman (1985) in the entry atlas of science about the importance of multidimensional classifications.

What is here termed "the traditional approaches" to KO have mainly been linear. However, if a library have separate catalogs for different facets of subjects (such as time and place) a kind of multidimensional structure is introduced. This is the case with UASK in the Royal Library, Denmark.

Concerning D

Traditional approaches may be divided into "intuitive approaches", “intellectual or scholarly approaches” and “business- or management like approaches”. Examples of “intellectual or scholarly approaches” to KO are the LCC and UASK. They are systems designed to fit a specific collection and are based on subject expertise concerning different parts of that collection. They are optimized to a specific collection and to the same purpose that this collection serves. Also the table of contents of major works and subject bibliographies represent "scholarly approaches".

Management-oriented approaches, on the other hand, aim at designing systems that fit a large group of different collections. Standardization is important. Miksa (1998, pp. 42-45) discuss Dewey’s business perspective and its influence on the DDC.

Common for the traditional approaches is that they are mainly based on literary warrant and that they attempt to represent the universe of knowledge as this is discovered by science and scholarship. Also they are mainly "positivist" in the sense that is assumed that one way of organizing knowledge is simply the best for all purposes and that the task of interpreting the subjects in documents is a neutral rather than a value-based task.

Literature:

Foskett, D. J. (1991). Concerning general and special classifications. International Classification, 18(2), 87-91.

Gnoli, C. (2004). Is there a role for traditional knowledge organization systems in the Digital Age? The Barrington Report on Advanced Knowledge Organization and Retrieval (BRAKOR) 1(1). http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00001415/01/kos-role.htm

Kolding Nielsen, E. (1977). Dansk historisk bibliografi. IN: Danske opslagsværker. Ed. By Axel Andersen. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad. (Pp. 533-610).

Miksa, F. (1998). The DDC, the Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-Modern Library. Albany, NY: Forest Press.

NLM Classification http://www.nlm.nih.gov/class/nlmclassintro.html

Ranganathan, S. R. (1951). Philosophy of Library Classification. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.

Vickery, B. C. (1960). Faceted Classification. A Guide to the Construction and Use of Special Schemes. London: ASLIB.

Ziman, J. M. (1985). Pushing back frontiers - or redrawing maps! IN: Hägerstrand, T. (Ed.) The identification of progress in learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Pp. 1-12)

Ørom, A. (2003). Knowledge Organization in the domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 128-143.

Traditional classification

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 11-02-2007

HOME

Questions:

1. Present some of the basic principles underlying the construction of the Dewey Decimal Classification