On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment

Research on Automatic Classification of Documents in Library Environment: A Literature Review

“…Wang (2009) also argues that the number synthesis process in DDC is not reversible, and it is hard, even for a professional, to identify the boundary between the base number and facet notation because of the inconsistent usage of facet indicators; sometimes facet indicators are built into the base numbers, sometimes the ending zeros of a base number are dropped off (e.g., 500=0785=507.85), sometimes 0 is used as facet indicator (for general subdivisions), and sometimes 2 is used. Slavic (2007) also has the view that the disciplinary structure of decimal classifications such as DDC and UDC with ten main classes is very poorly equipped to properly represent the universe of knowledge.…”

Classification Transcends Library Business

“…As documents can be about anything, this does not impose any limit to the scope of bibliographic classifications; but it does impose a particular perspective; that is, the perspective of being treated in documents, in combination with other subjects, in the light of some viewpoint. For this reason, bibliographic classifications are said to be aspect classifications (Svenonius 2000;Slavić 2007).…”

Phenomenon‐based classification: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

“…Indeed, scientific taxonomies like those developed in biology or linguistics directly list objects of knowledge, that is phenomena—minerals, plants, languages—as opposed to the subjects of documents dealing with them, which are covered in bibliographic systems. Of course, each document deals with manifold phenomena and with relationships among them, which could be represented as such (see below); but traditional bibliographic classifications assume that these are best represented by selecting a specific disciplinary perspective, and are indeed described as “aspect classifications” (Svenonius, 2000; Slavic, 2007, p. 585). While this is the mainstream approach in bibliographic classification theory, an increasing number of authors is questioning it and supporting the alternative approach of classifying phenomena irrespective of disciplines.…”