SV: [Sigcr-l] Domain analysis and scientific classifications

[Hjørland Birger]

Dear Claudio, and all of you

Yes, there are several complicated issues involved here. 
One the one hand, I will claim, that each information system should describe
and index according to its specific purpose. (One could say to its specific
user group, but the same users tend to use many information system, why I
think it is better to say that each system organizes (knowledge,
information, documents, works, . . .) according to some ideal purpose.
Public libraries have a purpose, and both the acquisition of documents, as
well as their description and organization should ideally be a reflection of
that purpose. This is more clearly understood if we take a feminist library,
because here the goal is more distinct. So, people seeking information from
a feminist point of view are better served by a library or a dabatabase,
that describe and organize documents from this point of view compared to a
"general library". Psychologists wants documents described from a
psychological point of view etc. In the sciences chemical databases are
describing "pure structural characteristics", while farmacological databases
emphases the description of medical effects including side-effects. This is
the way it should be in both theory and practice (but often some
universalistic theoretical assumptions confuses things in both theory and
practice and somebody assume that a given description and and should reflect
all purposes. This view does not  recognize the hermeneutical insight that
all descriptions are (and should be made) made from a perspective). 

Library classifications (and other systems for KO) reflects to some degree
scientific research and knowledge. This is the case with chemistry in UDC
(reflecting the periodical system) and this is the case with art in
different systems as discussed bt Ørom in his 2003 paper in Knowledge
Organization. In one case (LCC) Ørom could not find that the library
classification reflected a scholarly view on art. Does this mean that a
classification system can stay outside discourses and views of art? No, even
systems that like LCC reflects a formal classification of the arts we may
say that such a view is not a neutral platform, but represents a view with
consequences like the other scholarly views presented (and i could and
should probably have been formulated as such). 

 Every day life concepts are to a large degree influenced by scientific
research. We classify whales as mammals, not as fish.  Libraries, that do
not recognize this make fool of themselves. There are objective relations,
that librarians cannot change (including geographical names). Amateurism
cannot be an epistemological guide for LIS. 

 (I use this occation to once more to refer to the epistemological lifeboat,
which is rapidly being improved: 

http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/home.htm

If there are still unclear issues, do not hesitate to ask further.

kind regards, 

Birger




-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Claudio Gnoli [mailto:gnoli at aib.it]
Sendt: 29. marts 2005 11:16
Til: ASIST Classification Research list
Emne: [Sigcr-l] Domain analysis and scientific classifications