Four Orders of Classification Theory and Their Implications*

Abstract

This article provides an interpretation of the structure of classification theory literature, from the late 19th Century to the present, by dividing it into four orders, and then describes the relationship between that and manuals for classification design.

Keywords:

• Classification
• metatheory
• versioning
• interoperability
• foundations

Notes

1 Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography, to which is prefixed: A Memoir on the Public Libraries of the Antients (London: Caldwell and Strand, 1814).

2 J-E. Mai, “Classification in a social world: bias and trust,” Journal of Documentation 66, no. 5 (2010): 627–642.

3 Joseph T. Tennis, “Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework,” Knowledge Organization. 35, no. 2/3 (2008): 102–112.

4 I. Dahlberg, “The compatibility guidelines – a re-evaluation,” in Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminary Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, September 13–15, 1995 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo SBP, 1996).

5 W. C. Berwick Sayers, A Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. 3^rd ed. (London: Grafton, 1955).

6 S. R. Ranganathan, Prolegomena to Library Classification, 3rd ed. (Madras, 1967).

7 B. C. Vickery, Faceted Classification: A Guide to Construction and Use of Special Schemes (London, Aslib, 1960).

8 Elaine Svenonius, The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000).

9 E. Wyndham Hulme, “Principles of Book Classification,” Library Association Record 13 (1911): 354–58, 389–94, 440–44; 14 (1912): 39–46, 174–81, 447.

10 H. E. Bliss, The Organization of Knowledge and the Subject-Approach to Books (New York: Wilson, 1933).

11 Pauline Atherton, ed., Classification Research: Proceedings of the Second International Study Conference held at Hotel Prins Hamlet, Elsinore, Denmark, September 14–16, 1964 (Musgaard: FID/CR Committee, 1965).

12 Birger Hjørland and Hanne Albrechtsen, “Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46, no. 6 (1995): 400–25.

13 C. Beghtol, "Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: Relationships between professional and naive classifications," Knowledge Organization 30, no. 2 (2003): 64–73.

14 Marisa Elena Duarte and Miranda Belarde-Lewis, “Imagining: Creating Spaces for Indigenous Ontologies,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 5/6 (2015): 677–702.

15 D. Lee, L. Robinson, and D. Bawden, “Global knowledge organization, ‘super-facets’ and music: Universal music classification in the digital age,” in Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the 15th International ISKO Conference, July 9–11, 2018, Porto, Portugal, Fernanda Ribeiro and Maria Elisa Cerveira (eds.) (Baden-Baden: Ergon Verlag, 2018), 248–55. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 16.

16 M. Kleinberg, “Reconstructionism: A comparative method for viewpoint analysis and indexing using the example of Kohlberg’s moral stages,” in Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the 15th International ISKO Conference, July 9–11, 2018, Porto, Portugal (Baden-Baden: Ergon Verlag, 2018), 400–08. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 16.

17 Jennifer Rowley and John Farrow, Organizing Knowledge: An Introduction to Managing Access to Information. 3rd ed. (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000).

18 Eric J. Hunter, Classification made simple: An introduction to knowledge organization and information retrieval, 3rd ed. (Florence, Taylor and Francis, 2009).

19 Susan Batley, Classification in Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2014).

20 Rebecca Green, “Indigenous Peoples in the U.S., Sovereign Nations, and the DDC,” Knowledge Organization 42, no. 4 (2015): 211–21.

21 J. T. Tennis, Knowledge Organization Special Issue: Subject Ontogeny and Knowledge Organization Systems Change 43, no. 8 (2016): 573–654.

22 J. T. Tennis, “The strange case of eugenics: a subject’s ontogeny in a long-lived classification scheme and the question of collocative integrity,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, no. 7 (2012): 1350–59.

23 M. Buckland, “Obsolescence in Subject Description,” Journal of Documentation 68, no. 2 (2012): 154–61.

24 I. Dahlberg, “Library catalogs in the internet: Switching for future subject access,” in Advances in Knowledge Organization 5 (1996): 155–64.

25 Michael Panzer and Marcia Lei Zeng, “Modeling Classification Systems in SKOS: Some Challenges and Best-Practice Recommendations,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core Metadata and Metadata Applications, October 12–16, 2009 in Seoul, Korea (Dublin, Ohio: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, 2009). Available at: http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/974

26 Dewey Archives. Columbia University.

27 Ranganathan, Prolegomena to Library Classification.

28 Margaret E. I. Kipp, “User, Author and Professional Indexing in Context: An Exploration of Tagging Practices on CiteULike,” Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science 35, no. 1 (2011): 17–48.

29 J. T. Tennis, "Description and Différance: Archives, Libraries, and Museum Descriptive Traditions and their Educational Communities and Cultures," in “Richard J. Urban, Laura-Edythe Coleman, Paul F. Marty, Libraries, Archives, and Museums: Connecting Educational Communities and Cultures,” in Proceedings of the 77^th ASIS&T Annual Meeting, October 31–November 5, 2014, Seattle, WA (Silver Spring, MD, Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014).

30 Chris Holstrom, “Social Tagging: Organic and Retroactive Folksonomies,” in From Data to Wisdom: Resilient Integration across Societies, Disciplines, and Systems: Proceedings of the 18^th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, June 3–6, 2018 in Fort Worth, TX (New York, ACM, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1145/3197026.3197065

31 J. T. Tennis, “Two axes of domain analysis,” Knowledge Organization 30, no. 3/4 (2003): 191–95.

32 A. Broadfield, The Philosophy of Classification (London: Grafton, 1946).

33 Hope A. Olson, “How We Construct Subjects: A Feminist Analysis,” Library Trends 56, no. 2 (2007): 509–41.

34 J-E. Mai, “Is classification theory possible? Rethinking classification research,” in Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st Century: Integration of Knowledge across Boundaries: Proceedings of the Seventh International ISKO Conference, July 10–13, 2002 Granada (Wu¨rzburg, Ergon: 2002): 427–78.

35 Svenonius, The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization.

36 Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1999).

37 Richard P. Smiraglia, "The History of 'The Work' in the Modern Catalog," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 35, no. 3/4 (2003): 553–67.

38 J. Furner, “Interrogating Identity: A Philosophical Approach to an Enduring Issue in Knowledge Organization,” Knowledge Organization 36, no. 1 (2009): 3–16.

39 Mai, “Is Classification Theory Possible?”

40 Duarte and Belarde-Lewis, “Imagining: Creating Spaces for Indigenous Ontologies.”

41 J-E. Mai, “Ethics, Values and Morality in Contemporary Library Classifications,”

Knowledge Organization 40, no. 3 (2013): 242–53.

42 D. C. Blair, Language and Representation in Information Retrieval (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990).

43 Allyson Carlyle, “Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR and the Bibliographic Universe,” Library Resources & Technical Services 50, no. 4 (2006): 264–73.