13
ALCTS WEBINAR LAI MA SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON [email protected] NOVEMBER 12, 2012 Principles of Classification

Principles of Classification - American Library Associationdownloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/111212_principles_of_classification... · Principles of Classification . ... Compound subjects

  • Upload
    vokiet

  • View
    215

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

A L C T S W E B I N A R

L A I M A S C H O O L O F L I B R A R Y A N D I N F O R M A T I O N S C I E N C E

I N D I A N A U N I V E R S I T Y - B L O O M I N G T O N

L A M A @ I N D I A N A . E D U

N O V E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 1 2

Principles of Classification

TO CLASSIFY IS HUMAN! Group 1 Apple Broccoli Orange Pear Grape Pineapple Mango Kiwi Banana Cantaloupe Watermelon Cherry Group 2 Dublin London Paris Indianapolis Rome Berlin Madrid Venice Copenhagen Hamburg Lyon Group 3 Dog Snake Dolphin Elephant Monkey Cheetah Deer Kangaroo Bear Beaver Tiger Cow Donkey

PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION???

The Knowledge Universe

Source: http://acrosstheuniverse.blogs.nytimes.com/

History of LCC

The Library of Congress was founded by order of Congress in January 1802, “An Act concerning the Library for the Use of both Houses of Congress”

Subject approach was applied in 1812, adaptation of the classification schedule developed by the Library Company of Philadelphia

Library of Congress was burned in 1814. Thomas Jefferson’s collection was purchased. Charles Cutter’s Expansive Classification was chosen and modified for organizing the collection

A new classification system specially for the Library of Congress developed in 1901

Library of Congress Classification

“the scheme adopted has been devised with reference

(1) to the character and probable development of our own collections,

(2) to its operation by our own staff,

(3) to the characters and habits of our own readers, and

(4) to the usages in vogue here…

There was no exception that the scheme would be adopted by other libraries; much less was there any profession that it would be suited to their needs.”

–Herbert Putnam, 1916

General Principles of LCC

Literary warrant

Classes are created to cope with the literature that must be classified by the scheme, rather than on the basis of any theoretical analysis of knowledge

Strong US bias

Very detailed in subjects such as law, politics and administration, military and naval science

Less detailed in science and technology

Literary Warrant as a Principle

Library of Congress Classification

List all possible classes

Compound subjects are pre-coordinated and listed

Classes cannot be constructed by the indexer

Extensive repetition of concepts

Broad and shallow classification

An enumerative classification system

Typically consists of two letters and a number from 1 to 9999

Three letters may be used for a very detailed class

New classes are inserted into gaps between classes in use

LCC notation

http://library.williams.edu/memex/318/

History of DDC

First published anonymously in 1876 under the title A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloging and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library

An enumerative classification system with analytico-synthetic characteristics

Dewey Decimal Classification

000

021 022 023

020

Organization of DDC

Manual and Tables

Summaries

Schedules Relative

Index

Notation and Number building

Museum in Pennsylvania

708 Galleries, museums, private collections of fine and decorative arts

708.1 North America

708.14 (United States)

708.148 Galleries, museums, private collections of fine and decorative arts in Pennsylvania (Table 2: “748”)

Who? What? Where?

Representation and Organization

Selected Bibliography

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Broughton, V. (2004). Essential classification. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Chan, L. M. (2007). Cataloging and classification: An introduction (3rd ed.) Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Jacob, E. K. (2004). Categorization and classification: A difference that makes a difference. Library Trends, 52(3), 515-540.

Kwasnik, B. H. (1999). The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22-27.

Mai, J.-E. (2010). Classification in a social world: Bias and trust. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 627-642.

Olson, H. (2001). Sameness and difference: A cultural foundation of classification. LRTS, 45(3), 115-122.