Multiple Choice Question
Question 1: Multiple Choice
- Rigidly faceted
- Fully faceted
- All the above
Question 2: Multiple Choice
- Making bibliographies
- Shelf classification
- Information retrieval
- Cognitive classification
Question 3: Multiple Choice
- Fully faceted classification
- Rigidly faceted classification
- Almost faceted
- All the above
Question 4: Multiple Choice
- Scientific classification
- Knowledge classification
- Library classification
- All the above
Question 5: Multiple Choice
- classification of entire knowledge of the world
- a theoretical and philosophical classification of knowledge
- classification which is sophisticated and systematic
- none of the above
Question 6: Multiple Choice
- Fully enumerative
- Almost enumerative
- Almost faceted
- Knowledge classification
Question 7: Multiple Choice
- Older than faceted systems
- Later than faceted systems
- Coined simultaneously
- None of the above
ill in the blanks
Question 1: Open Ended
Question 1: True or False
Question 2: True or False
1. By area of Coverage
1.2. General classification covering the entire universe of knowledge
2. By Depth of Coverage
2.2 Depth Classifications which provide maximum details and are usually required for documentation work in special libraries or information centers. Special classification usually are depth classification.
3. By function
1. Cognitive, 2.Bibliographical and 3. Biblioethical systems
3.1 Cognitive/Knowledge Classifications
3.1.1 Taxonomic Systems
3.1.2 Knowledge Classifications
Arsitotle (384-322) the Greek philosopher divided knowledge into the following ten categories :
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) divided knowledge into three categories based on then known three functions of the brain:
1.Imagination (Arts and Literature)
2.Memory (History, etc)
Ranganathan in his Prolegomena (1967,p 71) has gives an illustrative list of authors of some knowledge classification systems:
1. Vedic seers (1500 BC)
2. Aristotle (384-322 BC)
3. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
4. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
5. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
6. GFW Hegel (1770-1831)
7. August Comte (1798-1857)
8. Andre Marie Ampere (1775-1836)
9. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
But the number of classifications in pure science is much more as given by BC Vickery (1918-2009) in his famous book classification and Indian Science London: Butterworths, 1958, pp.115-145.
These are all knowledge classifications which are preserve of the philosophers and scientists.
3.2 Bibliographical classifications:
3.3 Biblioetheal Classification
A cognitive classification can perform the latter two functions with equal ease while a bibliographical classification can equally be good as a shelf classification, but not vice versa. Nevertheless today’s library classification systems are mostly based on knowledge/cognitive systems.
4. From structural view point
a) Enumerative Systems
b) Faceted Systems
4.1 Enumerative System
An enumerative system is designed as a classification system which systematically lists (enumerates) all subjects of past, present and foreseeable future divided into disciplines, main classes and their subdivisions. How deep and granular the subdivisions are determines the depth of classification. If divisions are broad then it is not a depth classifications. A depth classification entails dividing subjects deep down into its various hierarchical subdivisions and related aspects to classify micro and non-book material.
However depth and broad classifications are relatively qualitative terms. There is no hard and fast line to demarcate the two nor there is any quantitative standard. For example, the DDC not considered too detailed for research libraries is not a broad classification either. The UDC though designed as a depth classification at present is available in two versions, Standard Edition, and Abridged Edition or Pocket Edition. However, the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) though a example of purely enumerative classification, is an in depth classification in 25 parts contained in 45 volumes.
4.2 Faceted Classifications
In a faceted classification there are no readymade class numbers. Instead, every main class is first divided into what is called facets belonging to different categories of concepts. Facets are further divided into what is called isolates. An isolate is the smallest i.e. further indivisible, unit of knowledge:
Universe of knowledgeDisciplines/Sub-disciplinesMain classes CategoriesFacetsIsolates
A faceted system provides rules, grammar and devices to combine these isolates with the main class to form a class number co-extensive with the subject. It means every class number in a faceted classification has to be synthesized. A faceted system instead of a list of subjects and their class numbers is a sort of machine to turn out myriads of class numbers with a physically very slim schedule.
5. Species of classifications according to Ranganathan
2. Almost Enumerative
4. Rigidly Faceted
5. Freely Faceted/ Analytico-Synthetic
He elaborates and illustrates their characteristics and features as follows:
5.1 Enumerative Classification
5.2 Almost Enumerative
Almost enumerative classification = Purely enumerative + A few schedules of common isolates.
In addition to main classes and their subdivisions resulting in compound subjects. It also provides some separate schedules of common and geographical isolates. It helps to construct monolithic class numbers for a few more compound subjects. Length of the schedule is fairly long. Editions 2 (1888) to 14 (1942) of the DDC fall in the category. Subjects Classification (SC 1906) by J.D. Brown (1867-1914) of UK is a good example of this specie. The SC consists of main schedule of basic and compound subjects and a categorical table. Indeed the hospitality and resilience of such a system in low and it is soon over powered by the cascade of new subjects. But since edition 16 (1958) the DDC is marching towards a faceted system. And since the 18th edition (1971) the DDC is heavily equipped not only with many (auxiliary) tables, but also employs synthesis of numbers by various ways through “add to….” instructions from the schedules 000/999 and also with some internal tables here and there. Though its base remains enumerative, yet the class number it can freshly generate outnumber the listed compound subjects. Eric Hunter (2009) terms such system as faceting grafted on an enumerative base. The present DDC is its best example
Almost Faceted=Almost Enumerative+A few schedules of special isolates.
Such a classification system also enumerates many compound subjects and a few complex subjects but many more class numbers for such subjects can be constructed.
In the brief line of evolution of library classification systems the UDC (1895/1903) is the first an almost-faceted classification. Apart from separate comprehensive tables of auxiliaries of form, place, ethnic groups, time, language and view point, it has also a series of some special auxiliaries applicable to a specific main class or its divisions. Signs of addition, relation and grouping provide much more synthesis of compound and complex subjects. Number addition Properties, Relations, Number of auxiliaries is increasing as recently common auxiliary schedules of materials and persons have been added.
In such faceted systems the length of schedules reduces but the number of class numbers it can churn out increases enormously. A faceted class number is structured and various facets can be easily recognized.
Another example of such a classification is the Bibliographic classification (BC,1944-1953) by H E Bliss (1870-1955). It consists in large general tables listing basic and compound subjects. Its auxiliary tables comprise of form subdivisions, schedules for space, time and language subdivisions. Further it has seven auxiliary schedules of historical and philosophical subdivisions. Here third category of auxiliary schedules is of special isolates of limited application. Indeed the system is resilient and hospitable to relatively micro subjects.Class number is visibly structured and its class numbers are polylithic.
5.4 Fully Faceted Classifications
Faceted classification=Almost faceted + more and more isolates.
Enumerative < almost enumerative < almost faceted < fully faceted.
In a fully faceted classification there are only basic subjects, schedules of categorised special isolates under basic classes, and maximum schedules of common isolates. In addition the classification system provides some rules for syntax of facets and a few connecting symbols to connect and distinguish facets from each other to avoid cluttering. Class numbers for compound and complex subjects have to be built according to the rules by classifiers, howsoever simple these might be. Nothing is readymade expect basic classes, thus with a small schedule a huge number of class numbers can be easily built as a child builds different toys with a small meccano kit. Thus a faceted classification is a machine or a process to synthesize class numbers.
Fully faceted = Basic subjects + Special isolates + common isolates
5.5 Evolution of Faceted Systems
1) Rigidly faceted classification
2) Freely faceted classification
5.5.1 Rigidly Faceted
2 : : : 44
Here the first colon is for Personality, the second for Matter, and the third of course for the space India 44. Though time facet is also absent but its absence is obvious being the last facet. Such a class number looked unwieldy and cumbersome. A small error on the part of the user in noting the shelf number proved highly troublesome in locating the book. Also the predetermined and rigid facet formula prevented addition of new facets in compound subjects. Use of Rounds and Levels was not possible. It means hospitality to new subjects was discounted. Ranganathan was on the look for twenty five years for a neat solution to the varying problems.
5.5.2 Freely Faceted
Libraries in 20th century
Libraries in 20th century India
Thus the facet formula becomes handy, very resilient and accommodative of any number of new facets in the form of Rounds and Levels.
5.5.3 Analytico-Synthetic Classification
Analytico-synthetic classification based on a dynamic theory of classification has essentially to be freely faceted. Usually the two are deemed as two sides of the same coin. It may be stated that the UDC is commonly deemed faceted, but it is not analytico-synthetic in the strict sense. It is synthetic but really not analytical of subjects and it is not based upon postulates. It recognizes no categories of subjects. At the same time, it may be conceded that UDC was freely faceted much before the CC as it prescribes different connecting symbols for each of its auxiliaries. Not only this, it also allows the freedom of choosing the sequence of auxiliaries that is citation order to suit local convenience. It’s flexibility is unmatched.
6. Current Thinking
It is primitive/aboriginal
It is modern and emerged later
It is inductive & hierarchical
It is a literal and horizontal in its divisions
Lists past, present and anticipated subjects and
their class numbers in hierarchical order
Lists main classes and their concepts divided into
various categories and facets
Class numbers are mostly available readymade with
some provisions to construct a few more
No class number is readymade, except that of basic
subjects or main classes
Class numbers are monolithic, sometimes even the
common isolates are undistinguished, e.g. 546.91,503
Class numbers are polylithic, show the structure of
the class number and its various facets, e.g.
Chain indexing to derive subject headings form the
class number is not that easy
Eminently suitable for chain indexing
Not adept in electronic database searching
Very useful for database and web searching
Comparatively difficult to design but easy to apply
Conversely, easy to design but comparatively deemed difficult
Theory in designing enumerative systems is nominal,
Mostly these are based on a sound theory. But
Ranganathan’s CC goes to the extreme limits to build a minutely thrashed out theory
Physically and textually schedules are bulky and
large and with detailed subdivisions. The LCC has more than ten thousand
Schedules are slim and isolates divided into facets
CC has only 200 pages.
Requires a comprehensive index to locate class
numbers for most of the subjects
Dependence on alphabetical index is quite less
Soon overpowered by the emergence of new subjects.
Frequently requires new editions to specifically classify new subjects
With devices and rules can help to classify new
subjects without waiting for the new editions
Soon becomes dated
Ranganathan calls it is a self perpetuating system
Leaves nothing for classifier by way of autonomy or
Provides lot of autonomy to the classifier and
leaves lot of space for creativity
These are the systems of past and their application
limited only to libraries
These are systems of the future and faceted system
can be designed for various industrial products and services. These are quite
useful classification systems for warehouses of different goods
However an enumerative system is not all outmoded. For a small and static collection, it is the best system in terms of cost and efforts.
7. Hybrid Systems
1) Provision of more and more general auxiliary tables of form, language, people, places, relations, materials, processes and many more.
2) Provision of tables of special subdivisions (internal tables) under different classes e.g. in the DDC a long table of diagnosis and treatment of diseases has been given under 614 diseases. The DDC and UDC now abound in such tables.
More provisions of synthesis of numbers are made through “Add to ... instructions”. It is taking a part or whole of a number from anywhere in the schedules for addition to a base. Such a provision did exist in the DDC since the second edition, yet from the 18th edition (1971) it has increasingly resorted to it to provide specific class numbers. The DDC is the best example of such a trend. With so many synthesis provisions while keeping the base intact makes it a unique but hybrid system. In the future all new systems will invariably be faceted with more and more devices and concepts for resilience and flexibility. But the old systems like the DDC will still continue to invent provisions for adding more facets on the enumerative base. Evolution of classification still continues as predicted by Ranganathan.
8. Categories by medium:
1. Online classifications
2. Print classifications
Classification plays an important role in online searching and retrieval. At the same time, computers have enormously facilitated the design and editing of classification systems. Most of the living classification systems have digitized their print schedules and held them in computers since 1990s. Now their various versions and editions are rather born digital and various versions and products are derived from the databases of classification systems held as electronic files, for e.g. the UDC is now converted into Master Reference File (MRF) .The electronic edition of the DDC, now known as WebDewey, is prepared from the DDC database called Editorial Support System (ESS). The electronic editions have many additional features for number locations, number synthesis, have many notes and additional material and facilities not possible in print versions. The print versions derived from the databases are merely discounted versions or toned down versions of the electronic form. The major systems such as the DDC, UDC, LCC are available both as print and electronic versions.
- Hunter, Eric J. Classification made simple, London: Ashgate, 3rd ed. 2009, pp.59-69.
- Krishan Kumar. Theory of classification, 4th edition, New Delhi : Vikas, 2004, pp. 80-88
- Maltby, Arthur Sayers Manual of Classification for Librarians, 5th edition. London : Andre Deutsch, 1975, pp.: 139-150
- Ranganathan, J.R. Prolegomena to library classification, 3rd ed. Bombay : Asia, 1967, pp. 94-112
- Satija, M.P. The Theory and Practice of the Dewey Decimal Classification System, 2nd ed. Oxford : Chandos, 2013, pp.21-23
Do you know
- Concept of species of library classification emerged only after the publication of the CC in 1933. Earlier all library classifications were of the same species – latter called enumerative systems.
- The term landline telephone was only coined after the invention of mobile phones.
- Knowledge classification has no species
Points to remember
- Species are kinds of classification differentiated by their internal structure and design methodology.
- Two broader species are enumerative and faceted; over the years a third one has emerged in which faceting is grafted on an enumerated base.
- For Ranganathan there are two species of a fully faceted classification: Rigidly faceted and freely faceted – latter is also analytico-synthetic in nature which is the most advanced specie.
- In the history of library classifications there is progressive evolution from faceted to analytico-synthetic systems with the exception of RIC in 1961.
- An enumerative system is difficult to design, but easy to use though bulky in size.
- A faceted system is easy to design but relatively difficult to use though slim in size.
- A faceted system is a machine to design, class numbers, whereas an enumerative system is a register of subjects and their class numbers.
- A faceted classification is more hospitable and has inbuilt mnemonic notation.
- A faceted classification is much more efficient in information retrieval.
- Enumerative system is most suited for a static universe of knowledge.