[Sigia-l] Standardized classification

[James Weinheimer]

>In addition, is there great need for standardized classification?  When
>are they valuable?  When are they not?

The purpose of classification has always been:
after all the items in a collection have been organized (i.e., when all the
resources have been placed into discrete categories: items on WWII are all
together, items on the planet Pluto are all together, items on computers are
all together, and so on) you want to arrange these discrete categories in
some way to allow further access by browsing.

There have been thousands of different classifications devised for
millennia, each reflecting different needs. A classification assumes that
the subjects arranged with it are arranged in ways that users can readily
understand, and that related groups of subjects are clumped together.

The problem is: what is a clear and obvious arrangement to one person will
inevitably be totally incomprehensible to someone else. A standardized
arrangement does not mean that it is correct while the others are wrong--it
just means that everyone has to learn only one arrangement, which can then
be used in other places.

So, if someone knows how one collection arranged by the Dewey Decimal
Classification works, they know how *every* collection arranged by the DDC
works. They don't have to relearn a new classification scheme for every
collection they come across.
On the other hand, if a collection has a unique arrangement, the organizers
of the collection expect the users to learn a new classification scheme
every time they use their collection.
An added consideration is that it is highly difficult to create and maintain
a classification scheme. If you follow a standardized one, it's a lot less
work (and a lot less control).

For small collections, a standardized scheme is probably not necessary, but
for large collections, it should be something worth considering, if nothing
else, to cut down the need to (re)create the classification over and over.

Jim Weinheimer