How to Classify a Work in BCC

In this section, we look at how a classifier places a particular work within a classification. The first step within all existing classifications is to identify the main class (effectively the discipline) that a work falls into. This step is avoided in freely faceted classification. But the advantages hardly end there. The appreciation that much (but not all) scholarly research, and most general works, involve causal linkages simplifies the task of classifying works significantly. As well, this section will urge a more straightforward set of guidelines than those provided within any extant classification.

How does a classifier approach a particular work? Ranganathan hoped to provide some clear guidance in terms of the questions one should ask of a work. Yet even his followers have found that his questions are ambiguous (MP Satija, Colon Classification, 7th Edition, A Practical Introduction, 1989). The BC2 in its application of facet analysis has expanded Ranganathan’s five facets to at least thirteen. It is recognized that only a subset of these would be important for the classification of any particular book. Szostak (Classifying Science, 2004) urged the use of the five W questions as a classificatory guide, and noted that these bore some similarity to Ranganathan’s five facets. It is useful here to discuss how these five questions might be used by the classifier.

It is suggested that the classifier ask in order What, Why, Who, Where, and When.

1. What? What is the key phenomenon being studied? For works that study only the nature or internal workings of one ‘thing,’ this will provide the answer to ‘what?’ For works that study how one phenomenon influences another, it is the phenomenon being affected that provides the answer to ‘what?’ For works that look at reciprocal influence (or merely compare or contrast two phenomena), multiple phenomena may provide equally good answers to ‘what?’ While shelf location may be ambiguous in such a situation, the notation should reflect the multiple nature of ‘what?’ (and subject searches should thus find the work when

searching by any of the relevant phenomena.)

The answers given here to ‘What?’ bear some strong similarity to those guidelines used in other classifications. BC2’s primary ‘thing’ is defined as ‘the principal foci of interest in a discipline,’ and thus both complicates the classification and confuses the nature of ‘what?’ Note that BC2’s second facet, ‘kind of thing’ would be included here as a realization of a phenomenon. That is, if cars are a phenomenon, then a particular type of car may provide the answer to ‘what?’ for a particular document. But a particular document will generally operate either at the level of a phenomenon (cars) or a particular kind (realization) of that phenomenon, and thus works will rarely need to be classified in terms of both (if a work does, the phenomenon should be coded before the realization(s)).

BC2’s facets ‘product’ and ‘by-product’ would also be subsumed under ‘what?’ (as is done in ILC). As is noted in BC2, these facets are generally treated identically to things, but can be provided with a separate coding that indicates that they result from some action. A classification that devoted special attention to causal relations would not need to provide a special notation for ‘results of some process.’ Foskett (1996, The Subject Approach to Information. 5th edition. London: Library Association Publishing, 153) concurs that when a document addresses the product of some process this product should be the primary citation.

2. Why? Here we capture the nature of the process (if any) being investigated. As with who (below), a general book provides no answer to ‘why?’ If, however, the work in question describes some sort of process (as is usually the case with scholarly research in particular) then we want to capture here the nature of the process of change [The ‘why?’ question is in this particular instance indistinguishable from a ‘how?’ question, as sometimes happens; see Szostak, Classifying Science, (2004)]. It is noteworthy that BC2 distinguishes here (but not elsewhere) between internal (sixth facet, process) and external (seventh facet, operation) processes.

Note that the answers to ‘what?’ and ‘who?’ (see below) are generally nouns (sometimes with adjectives), while the answers to ‘why?’ are usually verbs. Note also that a general book about, say, ‘communication’ will have no answer to ‘what?’ (or ‘who?’) and will thus be classified and shelved under ‘why?’

3. Who? Who causes the process under investigation? In works engaging some causal relationship, the answer to ‘who?’ is the phenomena that exert influence on others (This would be the eleventh facet, the agent, in BC2). Clearly, the personal pronoun here does not imply that the agent be necessarily a human, but, like in the case of Ranganathan’s personality, has only a metaphorical sense. A document that studies the internal workings of a phenomenon may provide an answer to ‘who?’ in terms of the phenomenon’s parts, its properties, or its material nature (these being the third through fifth of BC2’s facets).

Note that a classifier who has first ascertained whether the book investigates one phenomenon or more than one will know where to look for the answer to ‘who?’ Yet note also that a work may investigate how phenomenon A affects some part or property of phenomenon B, and thus coding for both types of answer to ‘who?’ may sometimes be necessary (with the internal answer preceding the external answer notationally)

Some works may investigate a causal chain: A influences B which influences C. If the chain is of manageable length, the work should code C, B, and A (in that order, separated by notation for type of influence), and appreciate that B is both cause and effect. Note here that the tenth BC2 facet (patient) is designed to capture precisely the intermediate nature of B in this example. Note that for general descriptive works about one (or more) phenomena, there is no answer to ‘who?’ A book on cars is just classified under cars.

It has been argued here that the logical order is what/why/who: we file a work under what is affected, how it is affected, and then by ‘who’ it is affected. We thus reverse the standard sentence structure of A causes B (noun, verb, noun object). To emphasize: the ‘why?’ question should be addressed before the ‘who?’ question when classifying a document, but after the ‘what?’ question.

4,5. Where? and When? Here we capture the space and time facets common to all faceted classifications. As in other classifications, these are usually coded last. Nevertheless works about a particular place or time will provide no clear answers to the first three questions.

In addition to the main entry for a work classified according to the procedure above, works should as relevant be classified in terms of theory applied and method applied and authorial perspective. The class TM is fleshed out in order to facilitate classification by method applied. The class TF is likewise developed for classification by theory type; Cutter numbers can be employed to indicate theory name. [See Szostak 2004, and Gnoli and Szostak 2008 in Published Works that Support the BCC for further information.] For works of art the classes AM and AT capture method and theory (or style). As for perspective, likely arrays here include rhetorical, epistemological, ideological, aesthetic, ethical. Ideology is captured in PL and ethics in TF5a. The arrays for the other elements are also in TF5 but have not yet been fleshed out. Feinberg, in an article in the Journal of Documentation (2011) addresses rhetoric, and speaks in particular of logical argument (manipulation of evidence), ethos (incorporation of audience beliefs and values to establish trust), and genre adaptation (adjustment of formal elements).