Facets as Discourse: How Facets and Facet

Analytical Theory Reveal Cultural Dimensions

in 21st Century Knowledge Organization

SystemsRichard P. Smiraglia

Abstract

The impact of faceted analytical theory and of the implementation of “facets” have had major impact on the development of systems for knowledge organization and information retrieval, ranging from major general bibliographic classifications to ecommerce. The discourse of facet analytical theory as a research front—that is, the over-arching story line of the growth, concretization and shifting intension of the concept of the facet is represented in the literature produced by that research front. This research front often is associated with the Dorking conference in 1957, but of course has roots in knowledge organization that can be traced to the 19th century. Diverse meanings of the concept of facet range from “broad facet categories,” often used as the bases of bibliographic classifications, to “analytical categories,” often used in ecommerce. Outside of the domains of KO and information science usages range from geology to dentistry to philosophy and beyond. Insofar as facets represent dimensions of knowledge they also reveal cultural influences. How is it that such a concrete idea can lead to so many divergent implementations? The answer lies in the analysis of cultural synergy. Cultural synergy is the merging of perception and behavior that shapes knowledge within and among the intellectual nodes of the diverse domain of “facets.” This presentation begins with pointers to the discourse as they emerge from an informetricanalysis of published research concerning facets and facet analytical theory, both within the knowledge organization and information science communities as well as across all other visibly active domains. We will explore the ways in which what we call classification theory has had effect much beyond our own domain. Faceted analytical theory is one 21st century realization of a multi-verse of cultural synergy, emerging from classification theory to provide impetus to improved information architecture at large.

1. The impact of “facets”

OED Online:

1.a. Originally: one of the small cut and polished faces of a diamond or other gem.

In later also: a flat, usually smooth, face or surface of any oject. …

b. fig. A particular side or aspect of something. …

2.a. Zool. Each of the individual parts or segments of the compound eye of an

arthropod. …

b. Anat. and Zool. A small, clearly defined smooth area, esp. an articular surface, on a

vertebra or other bone. …

c. Library Science. Each of several different categories or classes into which something

can be simultaneously classified.

Ranganathan, “emotion in old people”

S18:5Emotion in old people

S18:54 Anger in old people

S188:5 Emotion in octogenarians

S188:54 Anger in octogenarians

Ranganathan (1950, 100)

UDC, DDC 780

UDC (McIilwaine 2007, 34-6)

903-032.42 Gold remains

903 prehistoric remains or artifacts

-032.42 remains of gold ornaments

DDC 780 (Sweeney 1990, 30) has facets:

Theory (e.g. Psychology of music); Elements (e.g. Tonal systems); Techniques (e.g. Aural techniques); Character (e.g. Programme music); Forms (e.g. Sonata form); Executant (e.g. Orchestra); Composer (e.g. Beethoven)

Citation order:

Music Scores: Executant-Forms-Character

Music Literature: Composer-Executant-Forms-Character-Techniques-Elements-Theory

Matthews (1990, 49): a book on left-hand techniques in playing the piano

786.219366

786.2 Piano

784.19366 Left-hand technique

Syntax, Relations

Concepts such as causation or interrogatives

represent faceted contexts or relationships among

the simple concepts in a string

Szostak (2017 forthcoming) “grammar”

High-level ontologies such as the CIDOC

Conceptual Reference Model

specific entities from arrays representing things

and concepts are connected with relations

defining properties

The discourse of facet analytical theory

as a research front

The over-arching story line of the growth, concretization and shifting

intension of the concept of the facet

Broader and richer than KO or IR

Insofar as facets represent dimensions of knowledge they also reveal cultural

influences

The growth and concretization of facets has ten place in the period roughly

spanning the second half of the twentieth century

Facets have “escaped” KO into the public conciousness

(e.g., this PowerPoint “theme” is called “Facet”!)

Cultural synergy

Cultural synergy is the merging of perception and behavior that shapes

knowledge within and among the intellectual nodes of the diverse domain of

“facets.”

Every concept is perceived culturally

Every KOS is generated culturally

This goes to a theory known as social epistemology

Information institutions arise within cultures as part of the apparatus for

disseminating (and thus preserving) the culture

The inculcation of facets throughout KO and IR and beyond into IA and

ecommerce and the general consciousness is an example of cultural synergy

(Smiraglia 2014 Cultural Synergy in Information Institutions)

2. Informetric indicators about the

domain of “facets”

Multivariate domain analysis of ”facet” “facets” “faceted” and “facet

analysis”

Knowledge Organization Literature

LISTA

WoS

SCOPUS

Interdisciplinarity

Domain analysis of UDC 2017

Informetric analyses here combined to contrast domains

Chronological distributions

Most productive venues

UDC 2017 venues

Most productive authors

Keywords and Phrases: KO and LISTA

Keywords and phrases: WoS and SCOPUS

Keywords and phrases UDC 2017

In the papers In the cited references

Interdisciplinarity

Many varieties

Interdisciplinarity: single phenomenon … treated from parallel or combined points of view of more than one discipline (2)

Transdisciplinarity: points of view operating on a metaphorically higher plane (7)

Multidisciplinarity: phenomena … treated in more than one discipline simultaneously …points of view are juxtaposed (8).

(Szostak, Gnoli and López-Huertas 2016).

Multidisciplinarity in both WoS and SCOPUS

chemistry, cellular biology and knowledge management but not KO or IR

“Facet analysis”

smaller set combining traditional KO with organizational culture, psychology, environmental health, physics, materials science, and engineering

There is no evidence of transdisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity

3. UDCC 2017 as a discourse

community: most cited sources

Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to Library Classification, 3rd ed. London: Asia Publishing House 5

Hjørland, B. 2013. “Facet Analysis: The Logical Approach To Knowledge Organization.” Information Processing &

Management 49:545-57. 4

La Barre, K. 2010. “Facet Analysis.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 44:243-84. 4

Vickery, B. 1960. Faceted Classification: A Guide to Construction and Use of Special Schemes. London: ASLIB. 4

Aitchison, J., A. Gilchrist and D. Bawden. 2000. Thesaurus Construction and Use, 4th ed. London: ASLIB. 3

Broughton, V. 2004. Essential Classification. London: Facet. 3

Classification Research Group. 1955. “The Need for a Faceted Classification as the Basis of all Methods for

Information Retrieval.” Library Association Record 57 no. 7:262-68. 3

Gnoli, C. 2011. “Facets in UDC: A Review of [the?] Current Situation. Extensions and Corrections to the UDC

33:19-36. 3

Spiteri, L. 1998. “A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis: Ranganathan 101.” Canadian Journal for Information and

Library Science 23:1-30. 3

Vickery, B. 1966. Faceted Classification Schemes. New Brunswick, NJ: Graduate School of Library Science at

Rutgers University. Rutgers Series on Systems for the Intellectual Organization of Information 5. 3

Vickery, B. 1975. Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. London: Butterworths. 3

UDC 2017 as a discourse community:

monographsRanganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to Library Classification, 3rd ed. London: Asia

Publishing House

5

Vickery, B. 1960. Faceted Classification: A Guide to Construction and Use of Special

Schemes. London: Aslib.

4

Aitchison, J.; Gilchrist, A.; Bawden, D. 2000. Thesaurus Construction and Use, 4th ed.

London: ASLIB.

3

Broughton, V. 2004. Essential Classification. London: Facet. 3

Vickery, B. 1966. Faceted Classification Schemes. New Brunswick, NJ: Graduate School

of Library Science at Rutgers University.

3

Vickery, B. 1975. Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. London: Butterworths. 3

Austin, D. 1984. PRECIS: A Manual of Concept Analysis and Subject Indexing, 2nd ed.

London: The British Library.

2

International Federation for Documentation. 1905. Manuel du Répertoire

bibliographique universel: Organisation -- État des travaux -- Règles -- Classifications.

Bruxelles.

2

Kaiser, J. 1911. Systematic Indexing. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons. 2

Soergel, D. 1985. Organizing Information: Principles of Data Base and Retrieval

Systems, 1st ed. Orlando, Fla.: Morgan Kaufmann.

2

Svenonius, E. 2000. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization.

Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

2

Author co-citation within UDC 2017

(IBM-SPSS)

Author co-citation within UDC 2017

(VOSViewer)

4. Discourse in the UDC 2017

Primarily discourse among classificationists

Nod to IR

Tension between IR and document collocation

Many approaches to defining syntactical relations

Much ritual citation

Much citation of multiple synthetic clusters:

Faceted classification typically uses compound concepts which are seen as being composed from atomic concepts. It rests on the fact that concepts can have categories or kinds (Vickery, 1960, 1966 … Foskett 1996 … Slavic, 2008; La Barre, 2010b). For example, the ‘being female concept’ is an instance of ‘being a gender classifying concept’, and ‘being young concept’ is an instance of ‘being an age classifying concept’. The kinds of concepts are facets, and the terminal or maximally specific atomic concepts within a facet are foci. (Ranganathan, 1959, 1967; Vickery, 1960, 1966, 2008; Gardin, 1965; … Foskett, 1996, 2003; Broughton, 2004, 2006; La Barre, 2006, 2010a… Gnoli, 2008)

Frické 2017, 26

universes

http://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/space.html

universes

https://scienceisbrilliant.wordpress.com/category/multiverse-theory-2/

Pragmatism vs. rationalism

historical evolution in classification and knowledge organization

manifestation of activity theoretic

astride the inculcation of phenomenological points of view

“the need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of

information retrieval”

Chronology is context

1957 and 1967 are pivotal moments

Here are the beginnings of the realization of faceted information

Hot topics

1957: big tail fins, Sputnik 1, Asian flu, Hula hoops, last episode of I Love Lucy

1967: more troops in Viet Nam, more protests, Six Day War, Twiggy, Sgt. Pepper’s

Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Monkees, first heart transplant, Concorde, Pulsars,

pocket calculators

Sgt. Pepper

The major anniversary from 1967 in popular culture is for Sgt. Pepper

The point is:

Facets make the world a better place by

making classification more efficacious

References

Broughton, V. (2006). The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 58 (1/2), 49-72.

Budd, John. (2013). Re-conceiving Information Studies: A Quantum Approach. Journal of Documentation 69: 567-79.

Classification Rresearch Group (CRG). (1997 [1955]) The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval: Memorandum of the Classification Research Group: received, for information, by the L. A. Library Research Committee, May 1955. In: From classification to "knowledge organization: Dorking revisited or "past is prelude". Edited by A. Gilchrist. The Hague : FID, 1997. (FID 714), 1-9.

Hedden, Heather. (2016).The Accidental Taxonomist, 2d ed. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Hjørland, Birger. (1997). Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-Theoretical Approach. New Directions in Information Management 34. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

McIlwaine, I. C. (2007). The Universal Decimal Classification: A Guide to its Use, rev. ed. The Hague: UDC Consortium.

Mills, J. (2004). Faceted Classification and Logical Division in Information Retrieval. Library Trends, 52 (3), pp. 541-570.

Otlet, Paul. (1935). Monde, essai d'universalisme. Bruxelles, Mundaneum.

Oxford English Dictionary online, s.v. “facet n.,” http://www.oed.com./Entry/67435

Ranganathan, S. R. (1937). Prolegomena to library classification. 1st ed. Madras: The Madras Library Association.

Rangathan, S.R. (1951). Colon Classification and its Approach to Documentation. In Bibliographic Organization: Papers Presented before the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Graduate Library School July 24-29, 1950, ed. Jesse H. Shera and Margaret E. Egan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 94-105.

Rosenfeld, Louis, Peter Morville and Jorge Arango. (2015). Information Architecture: For the Web and Beyond, 4th ed. Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly.

Smiraglia, Richard P. (2014). Cultural Synergy in Information Institutions. New York: Springer, 2014.

Smiraglia, Richard P. (2015). Domain Analysis for Knowledge Organization: Tools for Ontology Extraction. Chandos Information Professional Series. Oxford: Elsevier/Chandos.

Smiraglia, Richard P., Andrea Scharnhorst, Almila Akdag Salah and Cheng Gao. (2013). UDC in Action. In Classification and Visualization: Interfaces to Knowledge, Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 24-25 October 2013, The Hague, The Netherlands, ed. Aïda Slavic, Almila Akdag Slah and Sylvie Davies. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 259‐72.

Smiraglia, Richard P. and Charles van den Heuvel. (2013). Classifications and Concepts: Elementary Theory of Knowledge Organization. Journal of Documentation 69: 360‐83.

Spiteri, L. (1998). A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis: Ranganathan 101. Canadian Journal for Information and Library Science 23:1-30.

Szostak, R. (2017a). Facet analysis without facet indicators. In Dimensions of Knowledge: Facets for Knowledge Organization, ed. Richard P. Smiraglia and Hur-Li Lee. Berlin: Springer.

Szostak, Rick, Claudio Gnoli and María López-Huertas. (2016). Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Switzerland: Springer.