scared of? Discussing the subject in such detail and getting this small matter of grammar wrong. What are you scared off!
Thank you
David Evans
Environment and Conservation
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/09/2002 10:03:28 >>>
Dear Leonard,
I enjoyed your defense of the librarian point of view. As we have already
scared of a member of the list with this discussion, may be we continue this
discussion in another form.
In the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr), we
seriuosly try to study the relation between museum and library information.
We want to create a "memorandum of understanding".
Your phrase: "I don't want people to think that classification as
discussed in a library or information science context is any
different in principle from classification as it can be applied
to material objects." seems to me both political and scientific.
I try to be provocative, because I believe that only elaborating
differences and limitations allows us to understand the power of
any approach, and to move beyond existing paradigms.
From your arguments, at least the notion of "division", the question
if "book" is a physical form, the question if physical form is
always relevant for material objects, the notion of "records of harps",
is for me worthwhile enough to go into more details.
If enough interest can be found, I invite you to a workshop in Crete
on this topic. Depending on the number of interested people, we can
think of a set of position papers published on the Web, and a
structured discussion, or a smaller working group elaborating a common
report about the problem, agreement, and open issues.
Possible Title:
"Is museum information different from library information;
should museum object be indexed like library objects?"
All the best,
Martin
Leonard Will wrote:
> In message <[log in to unmask]> on Wed, 4 Sep 2002, martin
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote
>
>>
>> I'd like to point out, that classification of material objects, as e.g.
>> archaeologists and biologists do (sense a) in Aida's message), has
>> hardly anything to do with the librarians sense you refer below.
>
> . . .
>
>> This unlucky confusion of description levels leads in turn to a
>> confusion of librarian terms with terms of other disciplines. For me,
>> material objects have no position in a subject space. They are, they
>> are not "about", nor can a resource be a surrogate of the object. I
>> guess, that Ed thinks of classification and indexing as that of
>> material objects. If he thinks of both, material objects and
>> "information objects", I would regard it worthwhile to start separating
>> the issues.
>
>
> I don't see that there is really a clear distinction of the kind you
> refer to. Librarians typically classify, or group, things according to
> some "criterion of division". In the most widely used classification
> schemes, such as Dewey, Library of Congress, UDC or Bliss, the primary
> characteristic of division is "discipline", such as "religion",
> "language", "science", "arts", "history" and so on. This is not an
> inherent requirement of a classification scheme, though. In many
> libraries in fact a primary division by physical form is added, taking
> precedence over division by subject, so that items are first grouped as
> "books", "journals", "video tapes", "manuscripts" etc. They may be
> grouped by date or by audience, e.g. "children", "adult learners",
> "visually impaired" or even "library staff".
>
> In the same way, the *principle* of classification is the same whether
> you are dealing with physical objects or information objects. You decide
> on the criteria of division and apply them consistently in order to give
> the most useful groupings, bringing related items together and creating
> a logical sequence. The same criteria can be applied in the same order
> to records "about harps" as to records "of harps", though in some
> circumstances it might be desirable to vary them in the two cases. This
> does not affect the principles on which classification is based.
>
>> For me, material objects have complex relationships of relevance for
>> different contexts. An index for material objects should pick up
>> properties relevant for specific contexts.
>
>
> Not just for material objects - this applies equally to information
> objects.
>
>> Regard an antique harp. Excavation place may be relevant for an
>> archeologists view, number of strings for a musical instruments view.
>> Those properties can either be found on the object or in historical
>> records about them. The relevant property may be about the object
>> itself or about the context (e.g. about the owner, about the species).
>
>
> Yes, certainly it is necessary to provide various access points by which
> records can be retrieved. Whether you combine some of these into a
> single field called "classification" or store them in separate fields in
> a record is a matter of choice and system design. With the power of
> computerised systems the tendency is now to store them separately and
> combine them at the time of searching rather than using the
> pre-coordinate approach that was necessary when using index cards or
> lists.
>
> When classifying physical objects the primary criterion is commonly
> physical form - Does it have a backbone? What material is it made of?
> How many legs does it have? - but it would equally be valid to use other
> criteria such as: What place or culture does it come from? What is its
> source of power?
>
> Taxonomies used in biology and similar subjects define the criteria of
> division and the order in which they are to be applied, so that a single
> item can be placed at only a single location in the classification
> scheme. (Indeed I like to keep the term "taxonomy" for this kind of
> classification, rather than the wider and vaguer use that it is
> fashionable to give the term nowadays). A taxonomy is thus a specific
> kind of classification, in my view.
>
> This discussion has wandered away a bit from Ed's original question
> about the difference between classification and indexing, but I don't
> want people to think that classification as discussed in a library or
> information science context is any different in principle from
> classification as it can be applied to material objects.
>
> Leonard
>
> --
> Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
> Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
> 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] > ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [log in to unmask] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the South Gloucestershire Council
Postmaster at the address below.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|
