Advantages of the Basic Concepts Classification

Each of the points below has been developed in published articles or books. See Published Works that Support the BCC

1. Since most works can be classified as links between phenomena, we are able to achieve very precise classifications with limited and expressive notation.

2. Users are thus better able to find precisely what they want, whether they wish to search in one discipline or across all. Works need not but can be coded by discipline.

3. Critically, since a user's search query can be easily altered in a variety of directions, they can be guided to important related works that they would not have known to search for. In other words, the classification instantiates a web-of-relations approach to classification that has been urged especially by feminist scholarship. Literature-based discovery is thus facilitated.

4. By distinguishing different sorts of relationship (especially causation/influence), we enable searches by verb-like terms as well.

5. While other classification systems provide specific instructions in multiple places for coding by time or place or people, this system has a universal coding for such elements. This renders both classification and searching easier.

6. At times, there is some ambiguity as to how to code a complex causal relationship (e.g. terrorism). [Thus, there is sometimes hidden dual coding, so that the term can be found using multiple symbolic searches.] Users may often find it useful to enter the classification by entering search terms in the usual way. Nevertheless, the classification can still alert users to closely related linkages.

7. The system is ideally suited to Boolean searches using symbols [though users can achieve similar results by searching by terms; the computer can translate words to symbols]. A user searching by (C)(→)(P) will uncover all of the ways that any aspect of culture has any sort of influence on any aspect of politics. They can then easily narrow their search.

8. Note that the use of linked notation serves to place works (but not things) within multiple hierarchies (and of relations as well as things)

9. Note likewise that a document can be given a very detailed classification, but also a much simpler shelf-mark that reflects its main phenomenon or causal linkage.

10. It should be possible to translate all search or entry terms employed in other classifications into basic concepts. Note that in addition we create the possibility of (fairly) automatically coding for new works or for existing works that are at present poorly classified. See http://www.economics.ualberta.ca/People/~/media/economics/FacultyAndStaff/Szostak/Szostak-Dewey-Conversion-Table.pdf for an example of how terms in DDC could be translated into (an earlier version of) BCC. Note that classes were often clarified in the process.

11. Users can readily judge the importance they are likely to attach to a work if it will be classified in terms of theory, method, and authorial perspective applied, as well as precise causal arguments investigated.

12. The classification relies on generally short and logically organized hierarchies. Other classifications 'abuse' hierarchy in order to find a place for what are actually relationships. [See Reforming Hierarchy]

13. The classification is able to use natural language but yet there are very precise definitions associated with each concept in the BCC.

14. The classification is neither strictly pre-coordinated nor post-coordinated, but achieves the best of both [My paper forthcoming in February 2015 in Library Trends makes this and the three preceding points in more detail.]