Traditional classification

"Traditional classification"

The traditional classification systems used in libraries and databases, including Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) still plays an important practical role in libraries and still influences the teaching and study of KO. (There are important differences between systems such as DDC, UDC and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) that are not considered at this place even if one might claim that they represent tree different approaches to KO).

The DDC system is very popular and has, for example, in 2001 been introduced by the Danish State Library in Århus. This decision was probably taken because most books are already DDC classified by the Library of Congress (about reasons to prefer the DDC system see also Shorten, Seikel & Ahrberg, 2005). The DDC system was published in its first edition in 1876. The question is, however, what kind of approach to KO such systems can be said to represent?

As opposed to the facet analytic tradition is there no evident theoretical approach in enumerated library classification systems.

S. R. Ranganathan wrote in his ‘Philosophy of Library Classification’ (1951):

“An enumerative scheme with a superficial foundation can be suitable and even economical for a closed system of knowledge…………What distinguishes the universe of current knowledge is that it is a dynamical continuum. It is ever growing; new branches may stem from any of its infinity of points at any time; they are unknowable at present. They can not therefore be enumerated here and now; nor can they be anticipated, their filiations can be determined only after they appear.” (Ranganathan, 1951).

Ranganathan thus expresses the view that enumerative systems have a superficial foundation.

From a library administrative point of view this is a dream. Its main advantage may be that it is a standard, not a system optimized to any particular collection, domain or user group, but it is economic to use for libraries. In this connection it is thought provoking that the field we now term Library and Information Science (LIS) was termed library economy in the first edition of the DDC and that this was not related to classification in philosophy. This is an indication of an administrative point of view, which has followed the system from its birth (cf., business- or management like approaches to KO).

Because of this fact is DDC probably not as much the users dream as are other systems (at least potentially). This does not imply, of course, that DDC do not consider the user's needs. If it did not, it would not be usable, and it would not that popular. In many cases, however, it do not model relations between subjects, as these are perceived by contemporary experts or as they appear in standard textbooks. Instead it prefers to stay to the established standard relation of subjects (to remain consistent with itself over time).

While the library administrator may prefer KOS that are identical from one library to another, the user may prefer systems that correspond with how a given subject is presented to him in educational programs, in textbooks, and in other domain-specific KOS.

Example: Dewey (2003, p. xliii) writes:

"A work may include multiple subjects treated separately from the viewpoint of a single discipline. Use the following guidelines in determining the best placement of the work: (A). Class a work dealing with interrelated subjects with the subject that is being acted upon. This is called the rule of application, and takes precedence over any other rule. For instance, class an analytic work dealing with Shakespeare's influence on Keats with Keats. Similarly, class a work on the influence of the Great Depression on 20th century American art with American Art. . . .".

Such a decision makes it difficult for people seeking information, for example, on broader influences of Shakespeare, respective the Great Depression. It may be a suitable principle for universal system which has to function for shelf-arrangement. It is based on the assumption that works have inherent subjects, not that subjects are determined by the questions the users put to them. In other words: The principle is related to the positivist assumption that the subject of a document is a kind of fact, which the classifier may directly observe, as opposed to the pragmatic assumption that the subject of document should be determined by considered which interpretation is most fruitful for the users - or for the goal of the organization doing the classification.

If this interpretation is correct then are opportunities for scholarly study and further development limited, why the teaching in library school tends to be limited to historical studies and practical matters. It is well known that new systems based on research or new theoretical principles have extremely difficult conditions in penetrating into the library sector. Bliss Bibliographic Classification, 2nd. (BC2) is, for example, recognized for being a modern and advanced classification system developed in the facet analytic research tradition. It is not much used in practice, which is an indication of the limited possibilities for improving library classification systems. Advanced research and teaching of knowledge organization should aim at provide optimal solutions to some group of users or to some kind of ideal goal, why it is a dilemma of such research and teaching to choose between what subject relations are considered important in discourses outside of LIS and what is considered administratively practical within LIS. In other words: It is dangerous for knowledge organization as an academic field to be limited in outlook by conservative "pragmatic" considerations. (This use of the word "pragmatic" is not synonym with the philosophical understanding of pragmatism, which I find important. See 'pragmatism' in Hjørland & Nicolaisen, 2005 and also referred to in above).

Among the reasons why it has been hard to develop a theory of library classification is that such decisions are made ad hoc or seem "intuitive" (cf., Intuitive approaches to KO).

During the history of library classification have some principles developed, which may also be termed "traditional". They represent less focus on administrative issues and may be related to more Intellectual or scholarly approaches to KO.

Founding figures like Cutter, Bliss and Richardsson found that the organization of books in libraries should be based on orders discovered by the sciences. Book classification should reflect knowledge organization, hence the name of the field. This view of knowledge must be seen as rather positivist in that it was often supposed that knowledge presented itself as facts. This may be the main difference between traditional approaches and the domain-analytic approach.

Another important principle is the principle of literary warrant, that decisions about classes and relations should be based on the literature. This provides the empirical basis for the classification systems. (This principles is mostly followed in LCC).

Literature:

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