Differences from the Bliss Classification

Since the Bliss Classification also emphasizes compound notation, it is important to stress the ways in which the Basic Concept Classification differs from it:

1) Bliss does not draw a clear distinction between ‘facets internal to a phenomenon’ and ‘relationships between phenomena.’ Both are important, but the two are quite different. In this classification (BCC), they are treated in both a logically and notationally distinct manner. Facets within a phenomenon are captured by logical subdivisions for the most part, or by –, ↑ or ↓. Relationships between are most commonly captured by → or ←. [To be sure, some notations can capture both facets within and relations between.]

2) As a result Bliss focuses primarily on links between phenomena only within broad subject classes. The fact that Bliss expects its separate subject schedules to be used as stand-alone guides (in conjunction with its introductory volume) is indicative of the limited role played by cross-disciplinary linkages. As with DDC or LCC, the same phenomenon is given quite different notation depending on how it is treated. Different elements of economics can thus be linked, but connections between economic and cultural phenomena require the development of new notations within these schedules. Bliss does have seven phase relationships (including ‘influences,’ ‘and’ and ‘compared to’) which can potentially link any two subjects. Yet these are used sparingly.

3) Even within subject areas, Bliss is limited in drawing connections by the facet order above. Subdivisions within classes must follow the order of facets rigidly. This makes it difficult to treat a higher order facet as linked to a lower order facet. Bliss recognizes this for some subjects: the standard order of facets often had to be ignored in mathematics; and in the coverage of art it had to be appreciated that style was usually more important than substance. Yet the problem is ubiquitous: scholars will often focus on connections that are deemed relatively unimportant by the Bliss order, and these may be difficult to capture within the Bliss notation. The Basic Concept Classification allows any connection to be drawn between any phenomena, relationships, and properties.

4) Bliss develops similar facets for multiple phenomena. For example, the ‘persons’ facet may include arrays for age, marital status, gender, or occupation. In this classification, these arrays are provided once and can then be used anytime they are required. This not only reduces the size of the schedules immensely by eliminating unnecessary duplication, but facilitates searching by, say, ‘children.’ This approach also allows particular elements to be connected to different hierarchies easily (corn as part of a crop hierarchy but also linked to a food hierarchy). This classification seeks to use linked notation as much as possible, and thus develops phenomenon-specific facets only as necessary.

5) Of course, some sort of notational priority is required for ‘shelving’ within physical collection of documents (and the default order used by this classification for shelving purposes is the same as in Bliss; note, though, that this order is generally important only for the first term in a notation.). Both BC1 and BC2 trumpeted the value of alternative notations: different libraries could decide whether a book on nineteenth century French poetry was placed beside other books of Poetry or other works of French literature or elsewhere. Yet these choices would require the books be given different notation. In this classification, the notation is flexible in an important way: X → Y is notationally equivalent to Y ← X but results in different shelf placement. As well, it is possible to Bold a later term in a notation if it is desirable to shelve the item in terms of that term. In these ways, alternate shelving choices are possible without changes in notation. A user can search notationally in different libraries and find all relevant works.

6) Bliss celebrated the fact that his classification could be grounded in a much later scholarly understanding than that which motivated Dewey and Cutter. BC2 was largely generated in the 1970s and stayed close to Bliss’ original ideas of the 1930s in key respects. The Basic Concept Classification is grounded in the scholarly understanding of the early 21st century. Its flexibility ensures that it will not become anachronistic.

7) In particular the Basic Concepts Classification is grounded in interdisciplinary scholarship. This scholarship recognizes that scholars interested in X may wish to study the chemical composition of X, the history of X, poems about X, and laws governing X. This will be much easier to do if the same notation is used for X in each case (but since linked notation is used, users only wanting poems about X can find these without being told of the chemistry of X). At the same time, this approach yields a huge consolidation of the classification schedules: X receives only one notation in only one place. BC2 suggests that interdisciplinary works can receive if necessary a classification outside the disciplinary structure (effectively a generalia class) – though it recommends that such works be classed with the dominant discipline [as tends to be the DDC and LCC practice]. While BC2 thus applauds itself for facing up to the challenge of interdisciplinarity, this strategy may actually serve to further scatter works on a particular subject.

8) Special note should be made here of relationships. All existing classifications focus the bulk of their energies on things. Relationships are often treated as things (Communication is thus treated in the same manner as pottery). Yet the vast bulk of scholarly work talks about how X influences Y. In addition to allowing any ‘X’ to be linked to any ‘Y’ this classification also develops a classification of the most common types of influence. No general table of relationships has ever been given prominence in a previous classification (because enumerative classifications treat relationships only if necessary and on an idiosyncratic basis, while facet analysis, as noted above, treats ‘verb’ facets identically to ‘adjective’ facets). As noted above, BC2 possesses a mere seven ‘phase relationships’ that are hardly given emphasis in the overall classification. By using symbols as notation for verbs, this classification not only distinguishes verbs from nouns but also clearly separates different nouns by the verbs that connect them.

9) One problem noted by Claudio Gnoli with any faceted classification grounded in disciplines is that facets relevant to the discipline (such as elements of the theory and method) get conflated with facets relevant to the phenomena studied. In this classification, these are clearly distinguished, but also applied across disciplines.