Talk:Colon classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Libraries (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


can we have some examples, please?

Colon Classification and faceted classifications[edit]

Discussion moved from user talk pages. It should continue here.

I'm sorry I had to remove your Yahoo! example from Colon Classification. CC isn't a general term for faceted classifications and the use of colons or whatever punctuation doesn't make any classification a faceted one. The page probably isn't at its current state clear enough about this. Yahoo! directory seems to use a normal hierarchical classification, but I'm not completely sure. Do you know if it is a real faceted classification? Wipe 07:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

For Wipe: You expressed some doubt as to whether Yahoo! is an example of Colon Classification. While it is debatable, there are some people that do make this claim. I remember this article from graduate school and thought it is both a good example of Colon Classification that people reading the Wikipedia would understand - unlike the example in Wikipedia from the same article.
My recollection of all the details of Colon Classification is a little bit hazy - so it isn't an issue for me one way or another. Scott Jenkins 13:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Yahoo! is not an example of Colon Classification, as you'll probably notice if you read that article you cited thoroughly. The author tries to find similarities between Yahoo!'s classification scheme and Ranganathan's Colon Classification, which is a complex and well defined system with specific rules. Colon Classification is a faceted classification scheme, but there are others. Nothing convinces me that Yahoo! uses one. Indeed, the author of the article somewhat fails in her attempt to show the similarities.

"Once at 'Education: Higher Education: Colleges and Universities' the next link for the geographic subcategory ('United States@') actually drops me back into the Regional hierarchy, as noted initially."

That's not proper faceted classification! The article she's seeking is only in one place (or class). Most likely the hierarchy tree of classes repeats certain "facets" in its structure, such as a class named "Colleges and Universities" under every single "Education" class under each "Cities" class. A faceted classification on the other hand would give each article a description of it's own based on some predetermined aspects (facets) such as place, time, and nature. The information seeker would not have to jump from class to class when browsing the directory. They would just give a value to as many facets as necessary and they would be presented with a list of search results matching the selections made. Wipe 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We agree that Yahoo! is not Colon Classification. Where we disagree is on two points: 1. Whether Yahoo! uses faceted classification and 2. whether it is in some ways derived from Colon Classification.
The author of the article linked above suggests that the directory serves as a faceted structure. I think Yahoo!'s has little in the way of formal structure. However, I do think there is an informal structure of facets that enable users to keyword search them across the directory. Example: search 'organization' and take a look at the different directory links. Organization is essentially a conceptual facet that crosses the heirarchial structure of Yahoo! and it can be searched. A casual search across other categories will reveal others. This fact did not occur by accident. So, we have some evidence for faceted classification in Yahoo!
You also seem to be approaching this more from a document perspective. While Yahoo! is clearly limiting the number of specific facets assigned to a particular site to one (or in some cases a few), this is more a function of the informal nature of their system and the issue of redundancy that too many facets would introduce. If you approach it from a document perspective, then it is harder to see the facets in Yahoo! - which I think is one of the issues you are raising.
Now the next question is about whether it is derivative. At its simpliest, you could argue that idea of facets are derived from Colon Classification so that if this is an application then it has relevant. However, I think someone wanting to bring the similarities and differencies and the impact of CC on Yahoo! and similiar sites into sharp relief could do so - and in doing so clearly convey what Colon Clasification is and is not. Part of my including it was to see if someone would do this - rather than simply deleting the issue because it was easier to do or because in the short term it might cause some confusion.
I think having a concrete example that people reading the article would be familiar with (and let's face it, no one outside of Indian libraries or those with an interest in classification attending a library school is going to know anything about Colon Classification) would help people get a better understanding of it and its significance. I'm not the person to write that article - but, it seems like it is worth doing. This also seems to be interest in having examples as is indicated by the comment above - can we have some examples, please? --Scott Jenkins 17:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I have added the *only* example that I have found anywhere on the internet and have found only 3 books that even touch on CC. One of them is a book on how to classify a book using CC referenced another book which gives a much more detailed view of the layout of CC. I would greatly appreciate if someone out there who knows how to obtain this kind of information to add the grammars to each general subject or leave a note on my talk page. Merosonox 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A common english word such as organization is surely going to appear more than once in any large general directory or catalogue. Moreover, facet doesn't mean a single concept under which documents (or subclasses) can be classified. It's a general aspect or attribute that can be applied to all entities in some group. The possible values of these attributes are specified so that we have a real documentation language and not just a collection of arbitrary keywords. For example, had we a list of organizations we might select purpose as one of the facets. One allowed value would be education. It's not useful to claim that anything that has keywords or subject headings is faceted (as if the concept of keyword would be a single all-encompassing facet). The Yahoo! directory classification is much like any normal enumerated library classification, isn't it? All it lacks is the shorthand representation in numbers.

You make good points on developing the article. I may try to improve it although I'm not an expert. I agree that reverting additions made in good faith is not nice. Luckily, discussing controvensial edits and issues on article talk pages is always possible and in fact an essential part of the development of the encyclopedia. The removed stuff can also be retrieved from page history.

As for this CC article, it shouldn't really contain much information on facet analysis and faceted classifications in general, or their relationship with other schemes (except for CC). It should concentrate on the special features of CC and leave the other stuff for the article Faceted classification. Wipe 23:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that organization would appear quite a bit as a keyword. However, if you do a search on two words with essentially the same meaning in Yahoo!'s directory - association (509) and organization (2,102). You can even find examples where one is subhumed under the other - Education Organizations > Trade Associations. This may also match your example of a purpose facet; again, I'm not sure.
I think this example demonstrates that there is more going on here then merely arbitrary keywords and that I think it at least raises the question whether there is something like facet analysis going on behind the scenes. And your comment about Yahoo! classification being much like normal enumerated library classification is why it might be a good example to use to illustrate the significance of Colon Classiciation. I think your main point is that it is too far of a stretch for this article - which it may very well be.
However, I wish we could think of a popular example (if not Yahoo!) that was in some way derivative that could illustrate facet analysis and those things that are unique to Colon Classification that would be useful aid to the understanding of the reader of the Colon Classification article. It has been a few years since I looked into Colon Classification, so I am not sure I have a good enough understanding to identify this kind of example (my selection of Yahoo! might even be the proof of not having this understanding!). --Scott Jenkins 23:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with this system, but would "tagging" based systems like qualify? What they seem to have in common is that items can be classified as a combination of keywords. Kith 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor article quality[edit]

This article provides sources at the bottom, but citations are not used anywhere.

Also, from: Universal Decimal Classification

"... at the end of the 19th century ... the UDC was developed as a new analytico-synthetic classification system..."

This really contradicts the first two sentences in this article:

"Colon classification (CC) ... was the first ever faceted (or analytico-synthetic) classification. The first edition was published in 1933."