[Sigia-l] Faceted Classification

[Donna Marie Fritzsche]

Thanks for doing some homework Andrew - this is  a fantastic summary!
Donna


At 4:10 PM +1200 7/12/02, Andrew McNaughton wrote:
>I knew that much of what was being said here was wildly inconsistent with
>my understanding of faceted analysis meant, albeit consistent with the
>general body of practices which often accompany it.  However I was
>sufficiently aware of the holes in my knowledge to want to read a bit
>before posting.  Much of what follows is newly aquired knowledge, so I
>would welcome corrections from the educated.
>
>Faceted Classification Theory
>   RT: Library Science:Classification:India'1925
>
>http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/toolkit/enduser/archive/1998/euc-9803.html
>http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p037y1984.pdf
>http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p045y1984.pdf
>
>Faceted Classification Theory refers in the first sense to a specific
>system for organizing subject headings developed in India by Shiyali
>Ranganathan, making the scope slightly broader than 'Dewey Decimal
>System', or 'Library of Congress Subject Headings'.
>
>I'm less than clear to what extent 'Faceted Analysis' in this sense
>describes the principles behind Ranganathan's 'Colon Classification
>System' and to what extent it describes the system itself.  It seems to
>get used both ways by the Indians.
>
>In the second sense (probably the most interesting), the term is used to
>refer to the principles of Faceted Classification (meaning 1) as applied
>to other library (and web) classfication systems.  Specifically it then
>refers to the practice of forming classification terms by synthesis:
>combining several facets to form a large set of highly specific subject
>headings from a smaller set of terms.  eg 'Library
>Science:Classification:India'1925'
>
>In the third sense, this is extended to consideration of resources as
>having facets.  I think this concept is fairly well understood here,
>though not perhaps the terminology.
>
>Beyond this point things get very wooly.  I propose that we lump
>everything up to this point into 'Little Faceted Classification' and
>consider everything else 'Big Faceted classification'.
>
>While I question whether some of what is being lumped under Faceted
>Classification belongs, I'm happy to see a bit of discussion os what I
>think might better be called Little IA.  I won't add anything to that
>tonight though - it's late.
>
>Andrew
>
>------------
>When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
>
>*Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
>ASIST SIG IA website: http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGIA/index.html
>_______________________________________________
>Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
>Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l


--