In library documents and information (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by the subject - as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes the "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them discoverable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always a consensus on which subject should be assigned to the given document. To optimize the indexing of subjects and search, we need to have a deeper understanding of what the subject is. Question: "what should the statement 'document A belong to the subject category X'?" has been disputed in the field for over 100 years (see below).
Video Subject (documents)
Definisi
HjÃÆ'¸rland defines the subject as the epistemological potential of the document . This definition is in line with the demand-oriented understanding of indexing cited below. The idea is that documents are given subjects for easy retrieval and discovery. And the criteria for what must be found - what is knowledge - is ultimately an epistemological question.
Maps Subject (documents)
Theoretical view
Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903) h3>For Cutter the subject's stability depends on the social process in which it means stable in name or designation. The subject "is referred to [...] on the intellection [...] who has received a name representing a different consensus in use" (Miksa, 1983a, p.60) and: "the systematic structure of a predetermined subject." Is " people in the public domain "(Miksa, 1983a, p.69); "[s] ubjects by their natural location in the classification structure of public accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p.61). Bernd Frohmann adds:
"The stability of the public sphere in turn depends on the natural and objective mental structure which, with proper education, regulates the natural progression from the special to general concepts.Because for Cutter, the mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind others, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, its discursive construction of the subject invites connection with the discourse of mind, education, and society The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, intercepts the relationship Melvil Dewey emphasizes more much more than once that the system does not map structures outside of its own structure, there is no "transcendental deduction" of its categories or any reference to the objective structure of Cutter's social consensus.is content-free: Dewey undermines any philosophical exogitation of its meaning. class, leaving work to find the verbal equivalent of the person Another innovation and essence of the system lies in the notation. is a bad semiotic system to expand the nest with ten digits, without any referrals outside of itself. In it, the subject is fully constituted by its position in the system. An important characteristic of a subject is a class symbol that refers only to other symbols. The verbal equation is not accidental, only the pragmatic characteristic...... The interpretive conflict over the "subject" becomes explicit in the battle between the "bibliography" (the approach to the subject having much in common with Cutter) and the "cover" of Dewey's classification. "William Fletcher speaks for scholarly bibliographers.... "subjects" Fletcher, like Cutter, refers to categories of a fanciful and stable social order, whereas Dewey's subject is an element of the standard techno-bureaucratic administration software semiologi system for his company's libraries, high culture, incarnation ". (Frohmann, 1994, 112-113).
Cutter's early view of what the subject is, perhaps, more wisely than most of the dominating insights of the twentieth century - as well as the understanding reflected in the ISO standards cited below. The initial statement cited by Frohmann suggests that the subject is somehow shaped in a social process. When it is said, it should be added that they are not very detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of ​​the subject's social nature.
SR Ranganathan (1892-1972) )
A system, which has an explicit theoretical foundation is the Colon Ranganathan Classification. Ranganathan provides an explicit definition of the "subject" concept:
Subjects - an organized body of ideas, whose extensions and intentions tend to fall coherently in the areas of interest and comfortable in the intellectual competence and the inevitable field of specialization of the normal person.
The related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students:
Subjects are a set of organized and systematic ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several...
The definition of "subject" Ranganathan is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on a combination of a single element from aspect to subject matter. This is the reason why the combined nature of the subject is emphasized so strongly. This leads, however, to the absurdity of such a claim that gold can not be a subject (but alternatively called "isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism about Ranganathan's theory is formulated in harsh words (op. Cit., P.Ã, 317): "This false science imposed on British disciples from about 1950 on...".
It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the subject of the word in ways that benefit his own system. Scientific concepts such as "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways to establish access to information. Whether the subject or not combined or not should be checked after their definition has been given, it should not specify a priori, in the definition.
In addition to the emphasis on composite, organizing, and systematic on subject subjects containing Ranganathan's definition of the subject of pragmatic demand, that subject must be determined in a manner consistent with the competence or specialization of normal persons. Again we see a strange thought that mixes a general understanding of concepts with the demands posed by its own specific system. One thing is what the word means, just another problem is how to provide a subject description that meets demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language that meets the demands placed on the system, such as precision and withdrawal. If researchers too often define terms in a way that supports certain types of systems, such definitions are useless to provide more general theories about subject, subject analysis and IR. Among these are comparative studies of various types of systems that are made difficult.
Based on this argument (as well as additional arguments already used in the literature) we can conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept's "subject" is not suitable for scientific use. Like the "subject" definition given by ISO standards for topic maps, the Ranganathan definition can be useful in its own closed system. The purpose of the scientific and scientific field is, however, to test the relative results of systems such as topic maps and the classification of Colon. For that purpose is another understanding of the "subject" required.
In his book Wilson (1968) examines - especially by mind experiments - the appropriateness of different methods in examining the subject of documents. The methods are:
- identifies the author's purpose for writing documents,
- weigh the relative dominance and subordination of the different elements in the image, which readers read on the reader,
- group or calculate the use of drafts and reference documents,
- interpret a set of rules to select the elements that are deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the job as a whole.
Patrick Wilson points out convincingly that each of these methods is not sufficient to determine the subject of the document and leads to conclude (p. 89): "The idea of ​​a writing subject is uncertain..." or, on p. 92 (about what users expect to find using a specific position in the library classification system): "Nothing can be expected from things found in a particular position". In relation to the last quote, Wilson has an interesting footnote in which he writes that document authors often use the term in an ambiguous way ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian can personally develop a very precise understanding of the concept, he will not be able to use it in its classification, since no document uses the term in exactly the same way. Based on this argument Wilson leads to conclude: "If people write about what for them is an unclear phenomenon, the correct description of their subject must reflect the disorder".
The Wilson concept of subjects discussed by HjÃÆ'¸rland (1992) found that it was problematic to give up the precise understanding of a basic term in the LIS. Wilson's argument leads him to an agnostic position which, according to HjÃÆ'¸rland, is unacceptable and unnecessary. Regarding the use of ambiguous terms by the author, the role of subject analysis is to determine which documents will be useful for the user to identify whether the document uses one or other terms or whether certain terms in the document are used in one or another meaning. Clear and relevant concepts and differences in controlled classification and vocabulary systems can be useful even if applied to documents with ambiguous terminology.
"Content oriented" versus "Request oriented" views
Requesting indexed indexing is indexing where anticipated requests from users affect how documents are indexed. The indexer asks himself: "Under whose description this entity should be found?" and "think about all possible questions and decide which ones are relevant to the entity" (Soergel, 1985, p.Ã, 230.
Requesting indexed indexing can index targeted to a specific audience or user group. For example, libraries or databases for feminist studies can index different documents compared to historical libraries. It might be better, however, to understand demand-oriented indexing as a policy-based indexing: Indexing is done in accordance with some ideals and reflects the purpose of the library or database performing the indexing. This way does not need some sort of indexing based on user studies. Only if empirical data about usage or applied users should request oriented indexing be considered a user-based approach.
The issue of whether the subject is in the content of the document (objectively) or in the mind of the individual user (subjectively) or in a community (intersubjective, as social construction) is part of the problem of philosophical subjects.
Subject knowledge view
Rowley & amp; Hartley (2008, p.Ã, 109) writes "To achieve good consistent indexing, the indexer must have an appreciation through the subject structure and the nature of the contributions that the document makes for the advancement of knowledge in a particular discipline." This is in accordance with the definition of HjÃÆ'¸rland given above.
Other views and definitions
In the ISO standard for the topic map, the subject concept is defined as follows:
"Any subject, regardless of whether it exists or has other special characteristics, of anything that can be affirmed in any way." ISO 13250-1, here quoted from the draft: http://www1.y12.doe.gov/capabilities/sgml/sc34/document/0446.htm#overview)
This definition works well with the closed concept system provided by standard topic maps. However, in a broader context, it does not work because it does not contain any specifications that must be identified in the document or in a discourse when considering the term or symbol of subject identification for it. If different methods of subject analysis imply different results, which of these results can be said to reflect the subject (true)? (Given that the phrase "correct subject assignment" means absolutely, which is an important part of the problem). Different people may have different opinions about what the subject of a particular document is. How does the theoretical understanding of the "subject" help determine the principle of subject analysis?
Related concepts
Indexing words versus concepts versus subjects
Proposals for differentiation between conceptual indexing and indexing of subjects are given by Bernier (1980). In the subject index his opinion is different from, and comparable to, the index for concepts, topics and words. The subject is what the author is doing and reporting. A document can have a Chromatography subject if this is what the author wants to inform. Papers using Chromatography as a method of research or discussing it in a subdivision have no Chromatography as the subject. The indexer can easily move on to the concept of indexing and words rather than the subject, but this is not indexing well. However, Bernier does not distinguish the subject of the author from the information seekers. The user may want a document about the subject, which is different from that intended by the author. From an information system point of view, the subject of the document is related to the questions that the document can answer to the user (see difference between content-oriented and demand-oriented approach).
HjÃÆ'¸rland & amp; Nicolaisen (2005) investigates the subject concept in relation to Bradford's law of scattering and makes the distinction between three types of scattering:
- lexical scattering - scattering of words in text and text collection,
- semantic scattering - concept scattering in text and text collections,
- subject scattering - item rendering useful for a particular task or problem.
Isness
"The FRSAR Working Group recognizes that some controlled vocabulary provides terminology to express other aspects of the job beside the subject (such as form, genre, and target audience of the resource).While very important and the focus of many user questions, these aspects describes what isness or class is done by form or genre (eg novel, play, poem, essay, biography, symphony, concerto, sonata, map, drawing, painting, photographing, etc.) than what it does about. " (IFLA, 2010, p.Ã, 10).
Ofness
"LIS writers who have focused on the subject of visual resources, such as artwork and photographs, are often concerned with how to distinguish between" aboutness "and" ofness "(either the portrayal or generic and specific representations) of the works. (Shatford , 1986) In this sense, "aboutness" has a more narrow meaning than the one used above.A sunset painting in San Francisco, for example, may be analyzed as (generally) "from" sunset and (special) "from "San Francisco, but also" about "the passage of time." (IFLA, 2010, p.Ã, 11). See also: Read & amp; Harpring (2000) and Shatford (1986).
See also
- About Us
- Document classification
- Indexing of subjects
- Access the subject
- Subject term
- Topics
Literature
Drake, C. L. (1960). What is a topic? Australian Library Journal, 9, 34-41.
Englebretsen, George (1987). Subject. Studia Leibnitiana, Bd. 19, H. 1, p. 85-90. Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40694071
HjÃÆ'¸rland, Birger (1997): Searching Subject and Subject Information. The activity-theoretical approach to Information Science. Westport & amp; London: Greenwood Press.
HjÃÆ'¸rland, Birger (2009). Book review: Rowley, Jennifer & amp; Hartley, Richard (2008). Organize Knowledge. An Introduction to Managing Access to Information. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. IN: Journal of Documentation, 65 (1), 166-169. Manuscript taken 2011-10-15 from: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/106533/1/Book_review_Rowley_&_Hartley.doc
IFLA (2010). Functional Functions for Authority Data Subjects (FRSAD): A Conceptual Model. By IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements for Authority Authority Notes (FRSAR). Edited by Marcia Lei Zeng, Maja umer, Athena Salaba. Federation of Association of Libraries and International Institutions. Berlin: De Gruyter. Retrieved 2011-09-14 from: http://www.ifla.org/files/classification-and-indexing/functional-requirements-for-subject-authority-data/frsad-final-report.pdf
Miksa, F. (1983b): Subject in the Dictionary of Cutter to the Present Dictionary. Chicago: American Library Association.
Welty, C. A. (1998). The Ontological Nature of Subject Taxonomies. IN: N. Guarino (ed.), Prosiding Konferensi Pertama tentang Ontologi Formal dan Sistem Informasi, Amsterdam, iOS Press. http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/papers/fois-98/fois-98-1.html
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments