Search results

The adaptability of the theory of integrative levels to a generalised classification scheme is questioned in that its hypotheses have not been adequately developed and confirmed. Application to the humanistic disciplines seems particularly inappropriate. Relationships between nineteenth century philosophical systems are traced and the Classification Research Group's dependence upon James Duff Brown's classification scheme is emphasized. It is suggested that not enough cognisance has been taken of twentieth century relativistic thinking in which space‐time is treated as a continuum.

In the January 1986 issue of Aslib Proceedings, an article by Derek Austin entitled ‘Vocabulary control and information technology’ appeared. In this article, Austin quoted some of Harold Borko's writings, and while the quotes are accurate, Borko would like to provide some elaborations and explain his position in a little more detail.

THE FLAVOUR of the eigtheenth edition of the Dewey Decimal Classification can perhaps best be appreciated by a quotation from its preface: ‘The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee hopes that this Edition 18 will prove to be a happy combination of the high principles of Edition 17 and the ease of use of Edition 16.’ This reference to ‘high’ principles might raise the eyebrows of the founder of the scheme. Ease of use he would heartily endorse. The high principles referred to are the concepts of subject integrity and the hierarchical nature of the schedules and the notation. These particular high principles were suddenly discovered by the editors of Edition 17, though they had been implicit in all classification schemes since 1876, with the exception of J. D. Brown's Subject Classification. In this country we would prefer to call subject integrity ‘classification by discipline’. In spite of this emphasis on classification by discipline, the conflict between this concept and the opposing one of ‘facet analysis’ which was present in previous editions is still present in Edition 18. The two processes work in opposite directions and the basic problem is to decide where classification by discipline should cease and facet analysis begin. Derek Austin, in a talk to the Cataloguing and Indexing Group of the Library Association in April 1967, pointed this out. For example, in 630 Agriculture the method of facet analysis is clearly at work. We have the energy facet stated at 631–632 under operations and problems in agriculture. The crop facet follows at 633–635, with the ability to qualify certain crops by operation and problem. This is pure facet analysis. But, as Austin points out, at 658 Management we find classification by discipline in operation:

The background to the Liverpool Polytechnic study of indexer reactions to the PRECIS indexing system and the methodology of the study are described. Some of the findings are discussed, special attention being given to points which some indexers regarded as advantages and others as disadvantages; the alleged labour‐intensiveness of PRECIS; the British Library and PRECIS; and the impact of PRECIS on the British library community. A thesaurus of terms used in the British Library PRECIS indexes is needed, and some consideration should be given to the possible simplification of PRECIS or modification to suit the needs of different users. Feedback from users of PRECIS indexes is required.

IThe activity of the group has continued to progress with great energy and enthusiasm for practical applications of the theoretical ideas and schemes of the members, many of whom have acted as consultants to private, government and international institutions. Some of the longer‐serving members retired, but continued to attend meetings. The Group heard with great regret of the death of Mr B. I. Palmer, its Founder Chairman. An important element in the discussions from its beginning was the theoretical scheme of S. R. Ranganathan, and this was largely due to Palmer, who had returned from war service in India fired with enthusiasm for Ranganathan's ideas, and determined to interest others in developing and applying them. His collaboration with Mr A. J. Wells, another founder member, had as an early result their little monograph, The fundamentals of library classification, which has greatly influenced both teaching and practice of classification, and not only in Britain.

Before starting to trace the development of PRECIS to its theoretical beginnings I shall describe the system briefly in its present form. This will serve not only as an introduction for those who are not familiar with the system, but will also help to explain the relevance of some of the historical sections which follow, in which we shall see how a machine‐produced alphabetical indexing system, based on a syntax derived from a study of natural language, developed out of research into principles for a new general classification.

Writers on library automation such as Borko and Lancaster foresee an end to human‐based indexing and classification. They anticipate a time when users will be able to direct their subject enquiries at machine‐held files of keywords extracted automatically from the ‘natural uncontrolled language of the document’. Borko considers that this will allow the user ‘to identify a few relevent items from among many thousands and display them on the video screen in seconds’. This paper reviews these claims, and then examines a genuine case where the computer followed the procedures proposed by these teachers. It also considers how a measure of vocabulary control, based on recommendations in some recent national and international standards, would have avoided the entirely irrelevant output produced by the machine.

This chapter covers the significant developments in subject access embodied in the Functional Requirements (FR) family of models, particularly the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) model.

A structured literature review was used to track the genesis of FRSAD. It builds on work by Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini who outlined a potential subject access model for FRBR. Tom Delsey, the author of Resource Description and Access (RDA), also examined the problem of adding subject access.

FRSAD seemed to generate little comment when it appeared in 2009, despite its subject model which departed from that in previous FR standards. FRSAD proposed a subject model based on “thema” and “nomen,” whereby the former, defined as “any entity used as the subject of a work,” was represented by the latter, defined as “any sign or sequence of signs.” It is suggested in this chapter that the linguistic classification theory underlying the PRECIS Indexing System might provide an alternative model for developing generic subject entities in FRSAD.

The FR family of models underpin RDA, the new cataloguing code intended to replace AACR2.Thus issues with FRSAD, which are still unresolved, continue to affect the new generation of cataloguing rules and their supporting models.

In the money under review the meetings of the Group have been lively and well attended, with over twenty members present at many meetings. The following visitors and overseas members were welcomed at Group meetings:

Farradane's categories of relations (Fig. 1) are viewed as percepts rather than concepts. It is argued that Farradane's original use of language supports this view. A comparison of Farradane's categories with perceptual discriminations in humans is attempted. The conclusion seems to support claims made for relational operators, whether those of Farradane or similar relational indexing devices as in PRECIS, to have the potential to act as metalanguages.