Classifying phenomena Claudio Gnoli KORG UWM, 2017-03-02

Knowledge Organization Systems keywords, folksonomies subject heading lists thesauri taxonomies classification schemes ontologies … [Golub 2014, ch. 2]

Classification schemes (e.g. DDC, LCC) usually list disciplines: Taxonomies (e.g. Linnaeus), thesauri (e.g. AAT) and subject heading lists (e.g. LCSH) usually list phenomena: animals BT molluscs Classification schemes (e.g. DDC, LCC) usually list disciplines: zoology malacology

Dogma of disciplinarity “Bibliographic classifications i.e. those one has to use to describe real documents ARE NOT and CAN NOT be taxonomic. They are by all means ASPECT or disciplinary classifications. This means that they will list one concept in all disciplines and fields where that concept might be studied: e.g. "water" will have to appear under chemistry, physics, in geology, medicine, sport etc. This is of critical importance for information retrieval as aspect classification helps to establish the context in which one concept or phenomenon might be studied within the document" [Slavic 2000 cited in Hjorland 2017; also Svenonius 2000].

e.g. in Dewey:

Heretic classificationists JD Brown (Subject Classification, 1906) B Kyle, DJ Foskett, D Austin (CRG NATO scheme) I Dahlberg (Information Coding Class’, partly) C Beghtol, E Jacob, BH Weinberg... (cl’ theory) C Gnoli et al. (Integrative Levels Classification) R Szostak (Basic Concept Classification) ...at least worth to be explored!

León Manifesto - New KOSs required by interdisciplinarity, - feasible, - based on phenomena - plus theories and methods - by synthetic approach [Szostak, Lopez-Huertas, Gnoli, Bosch, Rodriguez Bravo et al. 2007: see iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php ]

A series of papers Claudio Gnoli, “Classifying phenomena” part 1: Dimensions, KO 43 (2016) n. 6 part 2: Types and levels, KO 44 (2017) n. 1 part 3: Facets, in Smiraglia & Lee eds., in prep. part 4: Themes and rhemes, in prep. part 5: Applications, possibly To be collected in a book, some day

Dimensions of KO α [reality in itself] studied by mystic β phenomena “ ontology γ perspectives (disciplines) “ epistemology δ documents “ bibliology,epigraphy.. ε collections “ library sci’, GLAM ζ information needs “ IS, cognitive sci’ η people “ sociology

γ perspectives Include: disciplines [classical classification theory] domains [Hjorland] cultural warrant [Beghtol] subject ontogeny [Tennis] theories [Szostak] methods [Szostak] communicative function [Hutchins] ...

ζ vs. η ζ information needs focused in cognitive approach, user studies η people (i.e. users of knowledge) focused in sociological approach, domain analysis In a pluralistic view of KO dimensions, both can be relevant!

Phenomenon-based classification organisms biology fungi – mycology plants – botany animals – zoology - molluscs - malacology - arthropodes - entomology Not very different, for some purposes

Phenomenon-based classification ...However, a phenomenon now has a place of unique definition [Farradane] → stable notation → can be retrieved from any combination: “soils, with water” (was under geology “provision, of water” engineering “landscapes, with water” land planning “water, made of oxygen” chemistry)

Interdisciplinary KO This approach can also better serve interdisciplinary researchers A topic has not to be constrained within a disciplinary context New relations between fields can be discovered → KO can take a proactive role [Lambe 2015] rather than just representing conceptual status quo...

Base theme In a document, a phenomenon (e.g. “water”) can be either the base theme or a particular theme: “soils, with water” “provision, of water” “landscapes, with water, conservation” “water, made of oxygen” These notions come from text linguistics [Cheti 1996]

Base theme “soils, with water” “provision, of water” “landscapes, with water” “water, made of oxygen” Base theme is cited first, hence determines where the document is shelved or filed: together with others on soils, or together with others on provision, etc. This contradicts Slavic’s criticism that phenomenon classification creates useless groups (all docs under “water”): context is still provided by base theme, only it is a phenomenon rather than a discipline.

Particular themes The base theme can be followed by any number of particular themes: “soils, with water” Part “provision, of water” Instrument “landscapes, with water, conservation” Property “water, made of oxygen” Material The connections are “free facets” or “roles” [Austin 1976], also known as “phase relationships” [Ranganathan 1967]

Free facets So phenomena have their facet categories just as disciplines have (cfr. PMEST): 9 Quality 8 Form 7 Part 6 Property 5 Transformation 4 Disturb 3 Agent 2 Location 1 Position 0 Perspective (connection with dimensions γ, δ etc. )

Free facets Any phenomenon can be freely combined with any other: “freely faceted classification” [Austin 1976] jy7fU “soils, with water” More traditional “bound” facets, specific of a given class (of phenomena), can also be defined: jy96y “soils, with permeability: high”

Ordering phenomena General principles are needed logical division produces classical hierarchies of types: organisms animals vertebrates (chordates) mammals whales

Ordering phenomena levels of organization produce sorted arrays: … cells < organisms < populations ... … morphemes < words < phrases ... cfr. “scala naturae” → increasing value? only in informational sense...

Ordering phenomena types are related by inclusion, accounting for morphology levels are related by emergence, accounting for phylogeny Types and levels are orthogonal structures Together they can provide the skeleton of a classification of phenomena

Morphology vs. phylogeny Often but not always correlated: similar phenomena can originate separately then converge, e.g. whales, ichtyosaures, fishes (analogy) commonly originated phenomena can diverge morphologically, e.g. birds vs. other reptiles (homology)

Morphology vs. philogeny Alternative strategies [cfr. Hjorland 2017]: priority to morphology (phenetics) birds ≠ reptiles priority to phylogeny (cladistics): reptiles birds balance of both (Huxley’s grades, that is, levels): reptiles animals birds humans (“psychozoa”)

Major levels (strata)

Main classes minds instincts consciousness signs forms matter atoms molecules bodies rocks life genes cells bacteria organisms populations minds instincts consciousness signs society governments economies technologies culture artifacts artworks knowledge

Main classes CRG draft, 1969

Integrative Levels Classification inspired by CRG draft and research expresses main classes and subclasses by small caps espresses facets by digits (for ASCII reasons)

Integrative Levels Classification ongoing research project edition 1 consolidated in 2011, ed. 2 under development international team new collaborators welcome (e.g. for theses, editing specific classes)

ILC applications needed to: evaluate phenomenon-based classification compare it with discipline-based classification, e.g. Dewey First comparative experiment reported in Szostak et al. 2016

ILC applications

Disciplines in a world of phenomena Listed as subclasses of y “knowledge” considered as a cultural phenomenon [Kyle]

Disciplines in a world of phenomena Facets 0- Perspective allow to connect with dimensions γ, δ etc.:

Disciplines in a world of phenomena Perspective facets: jy07ysh “soils, studied in geology” jy07ytu “soils, studied in agronomy” jy03xh “soils, studied through photography”

...thanks! claudio.gnoli@unipv.it Twitter: @scritur (I mainly tweet on KO)