Jim,
Not so sure about the notation for classification being useless on the Web.
For one thing it is language independent. I could be looking for mass
transfer but miss items marked MASSENUEBERTRAGUNG or TRASPORTO DI MASSA or
any other number of different languages. An item marked QC318.M3 works in
any language as long there is some way to find that number to begin with.
As I see it working, I search in natural language the machine translates it
to the notation and then retrieves the relevant items.
Class numbers besides being language independent are concise. The item
could contain only the number but a translation program could provide
synonyms, singular and plural forms, and common misspellings.
Another useful tool with some classification systems, Dewey for example, is
the hierarchical structure they have. If searching on a Mass transfer
retrieves nothing I could be dropped in a tree showing 524.669978 (made up
number I do not have access to Dewey here) with no hits but 524.669
(Thermodynamics) has 12. Or a search on Physics retrieves, 1,000,000 items
but I am placed in a tree showing the breakdown of the topic from which to
make more specific choices. Both results are better. This is a feature I'd
like to see in more library catalogs.
The library tradition of only 1 class number for each item may disappear.
Just as items can have several subject headings so too could they have
several class numbers when the restraint of the physical location is gone.
The notation means nothing. Words mean nothing unless in context, tod could
be a name or German for death. Meaning comes from the structure and
associated references and cross-references. Notation can be easier to work
with than natural languages with their vast array of synonyms and fine
shades of meaning.
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
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|