[Sigcr-l] FW: Exhaustivity and specificity of indexing

[Koraljka Golub]

Dear all,

I just realized I didn't send the message to the list, but only to
Marcia. Sorry for the delay caused by this.

All the best,
Kora  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koraljka Golub 
> Sent: den 28 augusti 2006 07:51
> To: 'Marcia J. Bates'
> Subject: RE: [Sigcr-l] Exhaustivity and specificity of indexing
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Thank you very much for your answers! 
> 
> I apologize for not being clearer and more specific when 
> posting the question, I will try to do better next time.
> 
> The information I was looking for was provided by Marcia:  in 
> a traditional hierarchical classification, "there is one and 
> only one best place in a given classification to place a 
> given record" -- but this has been changing as the 
> classifications are changing its structure, and thus indexing 
> theory becomes applicable, as most of you have suggested.
> 
> Thank you all!
> 
> With best regards,
> Kora
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sigcr-l-bounces at asis.org
> > [mailto:sigcr-l-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of Marcia J. Bates
> > Sent: den 27 augusti 2006 04:36
> > To: sigcr-l at asis.org
> > Subject: [Sigcr-l] Exhaustivity and specificity of indexing
> > 
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > 	I first saw the discussion of exhaustivity and specificity of 
> > indexing in Lancaster's 1968 book, Information Retrieval Systems.
> > 	It seems to me that the kind of classification system 
> would play a 
> > role in dealing with this question of the exhaustivity and 
> specificity 
> > of classification. Consider a traditional hierarchical 
> classification. 
> > The classification, if properly designed, is assumed to 
> have classes 
> > that are "jointly exhaustive" and "mutually
> > exclusive."   Thus all the intellectual territory to be 
> classified is 
> > supposed to be covered jointly by all the classes in the 
> > classification (jointly exhaustive), and the content of no class 
> > should overlap with that of any other (mutually exclusive). 
>  In such a 
> > case, there is one and only one best place in a given 
> classification 
> > to place a given record.
> > There is no way to get either more exhaustive (one class is 
> the best 
> > and only place, so you won't assign the record to more than one) or 
> > more specific (the document is classified in the one best 
> place--there 
> > is no way to make the class any smaller/narrower.
> > 	Since indexing schemes are now sometimes designed to be 
> faceted, and 
> > originally hierarchically organized classifications are now 
> being at 
> > least partially converted to facets--e.g., DDC, there has been some 
> > blurring.  One can opt to create narrower classes or not by 
> utilizing 
> > additional facets (DDC, UDC), and records may have subject 
> terms from 
> > several facets assigned, which the online searcher
> > may combine at will.   Under such circumstances, the question of 
> > exhaustivity and specificity is arguably really about 
> INDEXING ASPECTS 
> > of the use of classifications--thus the question is part of 
> the larger 
> > literature of indexing theory.
> >  That may be why you don't find it in the classification literature.
> > 				Marcia
> > 
> > --
> > Marcia J. Bates, Ph.D.
> > Professor Emerita
> > Editor (with Mary Niles Maack), Encyclopedia of Library and 
> > Information Sciences Department of Information Studies 
> Graduate School 
> > of Education and Information Studies University of California, Los 
> > Angeles (UCLA) Los Angeles, CA 90095-1520 USA
> > Tel: 310-206-9353
> > Fax: 310-206-4460
> > Web: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigcr-l mailing list
> > Sigcr-l at asis.org
> > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcr-l
> > 
>