I understand what you are saying, but the purpose of the notation in this case
still escapes me. If you have the software to translate the words you want, what
is the purpose of the notation? Again, it may not hurt anything to display the
notation (although it could be offputting to some people), but the notation
itself still won't mean anything without a word translation.
On the shelves of a library, the number has meaning to a user who knows nothing
of the structure of the classification system only in relationship to the
organizing principle for browsing purposes. If you take that away (i.e. use it
for searching purposes) it means far less.
The assignment of single class numbers should disappear (as you state). Of
course, the reason we do this is because one physical item can only be in one
place at one time! Additionally, multiple classification systems could be used
for the same item. LC does this now by assigning Dewey and LC, but other
classifications could easily be added also (UDC, Colon, Bliss along with other
more specific systems). The emphasis should be on increasing possibilities for
user retrieval. LC and Dewey are great classification systems but they were
created in the last century, after all! We look at things differently today.
I agree that a tree arrangement would be a great advance for catalogs.
"Words mean nothing unless in context, tod could
be a name or German for death."
In a database which works with authorized forms, it is conceivable that "tod"
means absolutely nothing whatsover. In my example, "Bibliography" on its own
definitely means something in the system of authorized forms, and we can look it
up. "Bibliography" presents a complication in that it can mean both the
discipline of bibliography, as well as the form of bibliography (a bibliography
on the history of Germany). At least in the first case, it needs nothing in
relation to anything else to convey its meaning to the user.
>Notation can be easier to work
> with than natural languages with their vast array of synonyms and fine
> shades of meaning.
I don't know if I quite agree with this one, either--but I would love to see
some actual experiments!.
Jim
>
>
> Sincerely,
> David Bigwood
> [log in to unmask]
> Lunar & Planetary Institute
>
> > ----------
> > From: James Weinheimer[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 4:01 PM
> > To: Shalini
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Thesaurus suggestion
> >
> > The notational aspect has become traditional in library science, since
> > classification is used as a locating device for the physical items. (After
> > all,
> > the books have to be arranged in some manner for retrieval and--if there
> > are
> > open stacks, i.e. you let the users in with the books, it is a nice thing
> > to
> > arrange the books in some sort of subject arrangement, although they can
> > be--and
> > are-- shelved by size, usefulness, order of acquisition, or all sorts of
> > ways)
> > The notation is a symbol for a concept, e.g. in LC Classification
> > QA76.76.S64
> > stands for the year 2000 date conversion. Of course, no one could possibly
> > know
> > that unless they browsed through the books and found themselves in the
> > middle of
> > all the computer science books, where "Shareware" (QA76.76.S46) were the
> > books
> > before and "Software measurement" (QA76.76.S65) were the books after.
> > (What does QA76.76.S64 stand for? "Software maintenance")
> >
> > The notation is strictly a collocation device which means nothing to the
> > user,
> > except as a directional pointer to place him/her among related books.
> >
> > In this way, the notational aspects of classification tend to fall apart
> > when
> > they do not deal with physical items--if people are going to get books on
> > the
> > year 2000 date conversion, they will look for that and not QA76.76.S64
> > (except
> > as a meaningless number to click on).
> > What I'm leading up to is: I believe the notational aspect of the numbers
> > (originally designed to allow a quick and easy way for librarians to
> > arrange the
> > items on the shelves) has little or no use on the web.
> > To be sure, people want the subject arrangements, but they don't need the
> > numbers--they need the words.
> > Classification is certainly alive and well on the web (in fact, some
> > companies
> > are even suing each other over them!) but the classifications are based on
> > words
> > and not on notations. So, I think the original (pre-library) idea of
> > classification is going to come back, which is based on the arrangement of
> > concepts without the notations. Only then will people find the
> > classification
> > really useful on the web.
> > Jim Weinheimer
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|