[Sigcr-l] Exhaustivity and specifity of indexing

[Leonard Will]

In message <73573C2DCB0154408D790B1E7EDB0C521B9E28 at ka-exch01.db.dk> on 
Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Birger Hjørland <BH at db.dk> wrote
>>Leonard wrote: "I agree with what Birger says, but I think that 
>>Koraljka's question was
>>not so much about the specificity provided in the scheme itself, but the
>>specificity with which it is applied when classifying documents, i.e.,
>>for example, is it worth while to use the full specificity possible in
>>DDC by adding all the possible common subdivisions, "divide-like"
>>instructions and so on, or is it better to simplify by limiting class
>>numbers to 3 (or 6 or whatever) digits?"
>
>answer: According to Cutter's rule, indexing should be as specific as 
>possible. He wrote: "Enter a work under its subject-heading, not under 
>the heading of a class which includes that subject. EX. Put Lady Cust's 
>book on "the Cat" under CAT, not under ZOOLOGY or MAMMALS or DOMESTIC 
>ANIMALS".
>
>So, we are back to the specificity of the indexing language/classification.

Personally I agree and think it is most satisfactory to classify items 
as specifically as the classification system will allow, but I'm sure 
that other people would argue that it is not necessary to go so far.

For example, the BUBL information service <http://bubl.ac.uk/index.html> 
is organised by DDC, but the resources on classification are all grouped 
together as an alphabetical list by title, at 025.4, instead of using 
the more specific numbers that are available for each scheme.

I wonder why this is.

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
L.Will at Willpowerinfo.co.uk               Sheena.Will at Willpowerinfo.co.uk
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------