Home | Browse | Search | Credits | About
Register | User Area | DL-Harvest | Help
DLIST

Beyond retrieval: A proposal to expand the design space of classification

Feinberg, Melanie (2007) Beyond retrieval: A proposal to expand the design space of classification. In Tennis, Joseph T., Eds. Proceedings North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization 2007 1, pages pp. 31-43, Toronto, Ontario.

Full text available as:
PDF - Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader or other PDF viewer.

Abstract

In information science, the creation of classification schemes has been more commonly described in the mode of scientific discovery, as opposed to artifact design. From the literary warrant of Hulme to the terminological warrant of the Classification Research Group (CRG), to Hjorland’s domain analysis, the classificationist seems like one who documents and compiles, and not one who actively shapes design. Outside of information science, however, classification is used as an active argument to structure interpretations (in linguistics and philosophy) and as a means of coordinating and imposing order on work practices (in studies of information systems). In this paper, I suggest that classification researchers should investigate a wider variety of design possibilities, in which the purpose of a classification is not assumed to be a retrieval tool in the traditional manner. A consequence of an expanded design space is that standard classification manuals and guides become insufficient support for the design process; a new research area might be the facilitation of problem-setting aspects of classification design. One avenue of possible research involves the description of a design language, following the description of such by Lowgren and Stolterman (2004) and Donald Schon (1983). A design language, which might be operationalized as a set of product qualities, might provide a framework by which designers can better understand, evaluate, and create classifications.

EPrint Type:Conference Paper
Keywords:design language, design process, work spaces for design
Subjects:Classification
Evaluation
ID Code:1892
Deposited On:05 June 2007
Eprint Statistics:View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:Tell a colleague about it.

Abrahamsen, K. T. (2003). Indexing of musical genres. an epistemological perspective. Knowledge Organization, 30 (3–4): 144–169.

Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A., and Bawden, D. (2000). Thesaurus construction and use: A practical manual. 4th ed. London: Europa Publications.

Beghtol, C. (1986). Semantic validity: concepts of warrant in bibliographic classification systems.” Library Resources & Technical Services, 30: 109–125.

Beghtol, C. (2003). Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between “professional” and “naive” classifications. Knowledge Organization, 30 (2): 64–73.

Bliss, H. E. (1929). The organization of knowledge and the system of the sciences. New York: Henry Holt.

Broadfield, A. (1946). The philosophy of classification. London: Grafton.

Bryant, R. (2000). Discovery and decision: Exploring the metaphysics and epistemology of scientific classification. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Buckingham Shum, S. (1996). Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. In T. Moran and J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carroll, J. M., and Rosson, M. B. (1992). “Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(2): 181–212.

Christiansen, E. (1996). Tamed by a rose: computers as tools in human activity.” In Bonnie Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Floyd, C., et al. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: alternative approaches to software design and development. Human Computer Interaction, 4: 253–350.

Foskett, D. J. (1974). Classification and indexing in the social sciences, 2nd ed. London: Butterworths.

Hjørland, B. (1998). The classification of psychology: a case study in the classification of a knowledge field. Knowledge Organization, 25 (4): 162–201.

Hjørland, B., and Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal for the American Society of Information Science, 46 (6): 400–425.

Hjørland, B., and Nicolaisen, J. (2004). Scientific and scholarly classifications are not “naive”: a comment to Begthol [sic]. Knowledge Organization, 31(1): 55–61.

Hulme, E. W. (1911). Principles of book classification: chapter II - principles of division in book classification.” Library Association Record 13: 389–394.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langridge, D. W. (1976).. Classification and indexing in the humanities. London: Butterworths.

Lowgren, J., and Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., and Moran, T. (1996). Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis.” In T. Moran and J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mai, J-E. (2004). Classification in context: relativity, reality, and representation. Knowledge Organization, 31 (1): 39–48.

Miksa, F. L. (1998). The DDC, the universe of knowledge, and the post-modern library. Albany, NY: OCLC.

Moran, T., and Carroll, J. M. (1996). Overview of design rationale. In T. Moran and J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sayers, W.C. (1915). Canons of classification. London: Grafton.

Schmidt, K., and Wagner, I. (2004). Ordering systems: coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11: 349–408.

Richardson, E. C. (1930). Classification, theoretical and practical. 3rd ed. Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press.

Rittel, H., and Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4: 155–169.

Rosenfeld, L., and Morville, P. (2002). Information architecture and the World Wide Web. 2nd ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Soergel, D. (1974). Indexing languages and thesauri: Construction and maintenance. Los Angeles: Melville Publishing Company.

Suchman, L. (2002). Practice-based design of information systems: notes from the hyperdeveloped world. The Information Society, 18: 1–6.

Trigg, R., Blomberg, J., and Suchman, L. (1999). Moving document collections online: the evolution of a shared repository. In S. Bodker, M. Kyng, and K. Schimdt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 12-16 September 1999, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Vickery, B. C. (1960). Faceted classification. London: Aslib.

Vickery, B. C. (1975). Classification and indexing in the sciences, 3rd ed. London: Butterworths.)

Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wolf, T. V., et al. (2006). Dispelling design as the “black art” of CHI. In CHI 2006 Proceedings (pp. 521–530).

EPrints dLIST, an open access archive for the Information Sciences, is supported by the School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Established in 2002, dLIST has a global Advisory Board and is a part of the Information Technology & Society Research Lab. Open Archives
Contact: Admin | Donate