Linnaeus did at the very least bring us kingdoms of classifications which were based more on observable traits than on an arbitrary ranking system (Dewey). However, the system itself was still based on the observations of a single man with a specific vision of the world around him. The use of the binomial system did get him a little farther than Dewey's system, but some of the second word qualifiers would be difficult to conjure up without simply having memorized the entire system (because when I think of orangutans my first thought is not, "Ah, the feral man of the woods!" of course, now it might be because that is pretty funny.)
If we lived in a remote and finite world with limited data, Linnaeus's system could carry us far. However, given the diversity of not only living animals, rocks, and minerals, but of objects and things in this world, there is simply no way that a binomial classification could ever be enough for us. Eventually we would run out of qualifiers- kingdoms would not encompass enough, arguments would erupt about which pigeon-hole some newly discovered "thing" should fall into, and we would wind up with yet another useless, rigid system of arbitrary classification that relies on one limited perspective to conceptualize the entire (unfathomable) universe.
Ranganthan's classification was really fascinating for me because of what it allows us to do with classification in the present. I have recently made use of a system built on these very principles while looking for a new car. Searching through dealerships I am presented with searching tools like this:
 |
| (image from ferrischevy.com) |
The versatility of this system lends itself to continuous growth over time and also to a user-friendly experience. The adoption of systems like this one is highly logical and useful for conceivably any level of computer literacy- and this is highly valuable during a time when we have digital natives and older generations attempting to use the same devices.
This system, in my opinion, surpasses even the ever-evolving lists that Amazon generates for customers- specifically because the customer is again put in charge of the list development and given the opportunity to browse in a more intentional way. We as users do not have to search a specific title or author and can instead opt for more broad categories which can present us with ever more refined options until we find ourselves in new territory- exposed to books which meet our interests that we may not have otherwise discovered. The system is wonderful for this kind of browsing- as long as the materials are provided enough tags to allow them the flexibility of appearing in as many relevant categories as possible. This type of searching should be relatively limitless for digital books because computers can easily scan the materials for "keywords" that match the search criteria.
In many ways, libraries have already adopted this technology for their website-based search engines- specifically, the databases of academic articles are champions of this browse and grab approach. These multifaceted systems have no way of translating to the organization of physical books, but they do provide us with ever-more useful ways to use our technology in order to provide the best possible access to information for our patrons. If we ever find ourselves in a world of entirely digital books, the barriers of physical classification will become a thing of the past, but until then our libraries will have to continue to adopt these searching technologies and maintain the classical classification systems. Even sticking to that formula isn't all bad- sometimes when I search for an item and find it in the library, the current organizational system still allows me the opportunity to browse other books in the same physical category. So, we take the good with the bad and carry on with Dewey and our Library of Congress System hoping for a new step in the path of organization for libraries.
I leave you now with a flash back to the ways in which my peers learned the organization of our physical library in college... (Yes, these were my classmates and co-workers, and yes, I wish I had helped with this). Enjoy!
Is it useful to think of "when" rather than "if we ever find ourselves in a world of entirely digital books"? How long before paper-based books are in the category as vinyl records are today in a world of digital music? What will be the nature of a librarian's work when it comes to providing access to information?
ReplyDeleteHi, I appreciate the example you gave. Visuals are always good. You seem to understand online faceted systems pretty well, so I'll ask you this question: does the only difference between your example and the way Amazon does it lie in the pre-determined categorizations of books into areas such as "cooking" and "military history?" Because at first glance, Amazon does almost the exact same thing with the faceted searching. The difference is that "subject" is not a category for something like cars, but it is for books. This inherent difference means that if we want to retain subject searching, someone will need to decide what subjects go where. Do you think subject searching is becoming obsolete in the digital age, and we should aim purely for keywords as a replacement?
ReplyDelete- Gabrielle
While I agree that for planning and future minded purposes that we should consider "when" things change and "what" they "will" look like, I must say I disagree that we will ever move entirely away from paper books. While digital technology serves us well in preservation and rapid distribution of materials, there is something inherent in the experience of handling physical books that cannot be replaced by digital copies (and this is a sentiment I have heard from many people).
ReplyDeleteIt has been interesting to watch the ways in which digital media is taking off in society and the ways in which it is not yet meeting the expectations of our forwad-minded entreprenuers.
Barnes & Noble is about to disengage from it's eReading technology due to the fact that customer purchases have grinded to practically a hault in less than 3 years of their major push for eReader technology. As book sellers they still procure the majority of their sales (by a lot) in physical book purchases.
Moving in to a digital book world, we not only lose the experience of the physical feedback from the pages, but also the community centering experience of these massive piazzas of book buyers and sellers. There is a very specific culture to book stores- and libraries- that a number of people would miss should paper-printing dissipate.
If you will pardon a pop culture reference, I believe in the episode 9 "I, Robot... You Jane," of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the monologue by the character Giles (played by Anothony Head) sumarrizes this the best:
"Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower, or a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell musty and-and-and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is a - it, uh, it has no no texture, no-no context. It's - it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then-then the knoweldge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um, smelly."
I don't know that subject classifications would ever really go away, but mostly because some of our subject classifications are in fact search terms. In the case of amazon, the subject classifications could be likened to the make/model type of search terms in the car example. Amazon does involve the multi-faceted searching in their website, but the search bar is the immediate presentation they give customers, with the narrowing topic suggestions then being offered on the side bar after the initial search. (This is really hard to talk about without visual reference!)
ReplyDeleteIf I were expecting to see a multi-faceted searching tool for books, I would expect options like:
Book/eBook/AudioBook/MP3 Book
Hardback/Papeback/Spiralbound/Mass Market
Adult/Teen/YA/Children's/Picture Books
and so on...
Multi-faceted systems don't really eliminate subjects and labels, they just add more in order to make the materials easier to find.
I may be looking for a book that I would expect to find in the psychology section (on the topic of art making and mental illness) but maybe I should be looking in the art section- to limit subject searching to all the books in one category doesn't widen the field enough. I would prefer a searching tool where I could "check" a box for Psychology, Art, Perception, Memoirs, Biographies, crafts, paper back, 2000 - present day. A search like that could be more inclusive and much more specific at the same time.
I hope that makes sense...