Linnaeus, Mendeleev, Dewey and Ranganathan: What can they tell
us today about the organization of information?
Glenda Claborne
dMLIS, The Information School, University of Washington. Email: gbc2@u.washington.edu.
Abstract
Useful features of classification schemes are
explored through a survey of the events, ideas,
graphical representations, people, places, and
publications that have contributed to the
development of Linnaeus’, Mendeleev’s, Dewey’s
and Ranganathan’s classification schemes.
Linnaeus’ taxonomy of living things and Dewey’s
Decimal Classification of documents are basically
hierarchical systems of classification while
Mendeleev’s periodic table of the chemical
elements and Ranganathan’s Colon classification
of documents are property-based or faceted
classifications. The findings of the study are used
to understand better what makes a good
organization of information. Also, an attempt is
made to understand the relationship between
domain-specific and general schemes of
classification.
and Mendeleev’s are contrasting schemes as are Dewey’s
and Ranganathan’s.
Can we learn something from the inception of these
schemes about what makes a good organization of
information? Ideally, an organization should
1.
help us find information faster and more reliably.
2.
help us understand information better.
3.
be possible to use consistently and economically
over time and with different people.
4.
be hospitable to the growth of knowledge.
5.
be flexible with changes in information
technologies and language usage in a knowledge
domain.
6.
be able to support reuse of information
components.
7.
be able to support system interoperability.
8.
help us to observe patterns in information more
sharply and be able to make inferences more
accurately.
9.
help us make predictions about what is not yet
apparent and perhaps lead us to new discoveries
that would contribute to the growth of
knowledge in a domain.
Introduction
The classification schemes that we use today to organize
information had their beginnings. They had a history
including places, events, and people. What prompted their
development? How did their creators put them together?
What can they tell us about what it means to have a good
organization of information?
This study goes back to four classification schemes
developed in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries but are still
widely used today or are recognized as having contributed
to the growth of knowledge in their respective domains or
in general. Two classifications are chosen from domains
that study natural objects: the sexual classification system
and binomial nomenclature for living things developed by
the Swedish doctor/botanist Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th
century and the periodic table of elements that has gained
its mature form through the work of the Russian chemist
Dmitrii Mendeleev in the mid 19th century. The other two
are from a domain that organizes information about
information about things: the Dewey Decimal Classification
developed by the American librarian Melvil Dewey in the
late 19th century and the Colon Classification by the Indian
librarian S. R. Ranganathan in the 20th century. Linneaus’
Aside from its primary objective of finding out what
makes a good scheme of organization, this study also
attempts to find a relationship between the organization of
information about natural objects and organization of
information about documents. The issue is not so much
whether there is any correspondence of information to truth
or reality but an attempt to understand what we know and
how we know about our world when we speak of
information.
Do our schemes of information organization have contact
or connections with the experiences of people or with any
inner organization of the entities being observed? In what
specific sense does our ability to reason and make
predictions depend on our forms of information
organization?
Linnaeus’ classification of living things
(Carl Linnaeus 1707-1778)
Sexual System of Classification
In his Systema Naturae, a 12-page manuscript published
in 1735, Linnaeus laid out a system of classification for
each of the “three kingdoms of nature” (the mineral,
vegetable, and animal kingdoms). For each kingdom, he
listed a number of observations and then arranged his
classification in a table. But among the three, it was his
sexual system of classification for plants that was most
original, in the sense that he was the first to systematically
use the reproductive features of plants in botanical
classification. The Greeks had not considered sexual
reproduction among plants but it was already widely
discussed during Linnaeus’ time. Linnaeus considered it a
common-sense idea and mentioned several people who
have already studied the topic before him:
“That anthers and stigmas constitute the sex in plants,
has been discovered, described and assumed as infallible
by Grew, Ray, Camerarius, Morland, Vaillant, Blair, de
Jussieu, Bradley, van Royen, etc.; nor can anybody who
examines the flowers of whichever plant with open eyes fail
to see it.”
For Linnaeus, observations on how living beings are
reproduced formed the foundation for his systems of
classification for plants and animals. “The essence of plants,”
wrote Linnaeus, “consists in the fructification.”
“Each fruit is preceded by a flower; the essence of the
flower consists in anthers and stigma.”
Figure 1: Parts of a Flower
(Source: http://images.encarta.msn.com)
Linnaeus described the essence of plants in terms of the
reproductive parts of flowers but he used these structural
parts only in so far as they helped in organizing the wide
variety of sexual behavior among plants. His classification
is as much based on social contexts as on the structural
features of the objects he was trying to organize. We can
see the social context in which Linnaeus systematized a
classification of sexual behaviors among plants in an earlier
publication, Praeludia Sponsalarium Plantarum, a thesis
he wrote to present his views on a disputation of a
dissertation concerning the nuptials of trees when he was a
student at Uppsala University. The thesis opens with the
following poetic excerpt (not unusual for academic
publications in Linnaeus time):
“In spring, when the bright sun comes nearer to our
zenith, he awakens in all bodies the life that has lain stifled
during the chill winter…’
“Words cannot express the joy that the sun brings to
all living things…Yes, Love comes even to the plants.
Males and females, even the hermaphrodites, hold their
nuptials…”
“The actual petals of a flower contribute nothing to
generation, serving only as the bridal bed which the great
Creator has so gloriously prepared, adorned with such
precious bedcurtains, and perfumed with so many sweet
scents in order that the bridegroom and bride may therein
celebrate their nuptials with the greater solemnity…”
Plants have sexual or nuptial relations. So we see in
Linnaeus’ 24 classes of plants that the nuptials can be either
“publicae” (stamens and pistils nude and visible) or
“clandestinae” (covered and hidden in membrane). The
“publicae” can be further subdivided into Monoclinia
(hermaphrodites – stamens and pistils in one flower) or
Diclinia (stamens and pistils in separate flowers). The
Monoclinias can be further distinguished according to the
number of stamens – Monandria (one), Diandra (two),
Triandria (three), etc. Among the Diclinias, there may be
pure marriages (stamens and pistils are in separate flowers
– Monoecia on the same plant, Dioecia on separate plants)
or there may be adulterous (Mechea, Moechia) or
polygamous (Polygamia) marriages. Linnaeus went on
further to subdivide the 24 classes into 65 orders, this time
based on the number and position of the pistils. [Note here
that instead of using the structural terms stamens and
pistils, Linnaeus used the Greek for husband (andria) and
wife (gynia).
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: (a) Graphic representation of Linnaeus’ sexual system of classification. (b) One of Linneaus’ tables (only
half of the folio format is showing). This one is for the vegetable kingdom. He also drew tables for the mineral and
animal kingdoms. (Linneaus, 1735, Systema Naturae)
The sexual imagery in Linnaeus’ new method scandalized
the straitlaced in society and was not welcomed by other
botanists as in this excerpt from a letter to Linnaeus from a
botanist named Dillenius:
“I consider sexual differences altogether useless,
superfluous, even misleading, for establishing the
character of a plant. What is the point of it all? It is
puerile…” (Blunt 2001, p. 119).
But for many, the new system has proven very useful and
practical. Johan Grovonius, a doctor and botanist whom
Linnaeus met while he was living in Amsterdam and who
has helped him publish the Systema Naturae has this to say
about Linnaeus new method:
“Sometimes we examined minerals, sometimes flowers
and plants, insects or fishes. We made such progress that
by [Linnaeus’s] Tables, [his Systema Naturae] we can now
refer any fish, plant, or mineral to its genus, and thus to its
species, though none of us had seen it before. I think these
Tables so eminently useful that everyone ought to have
them hanging up in his study, like maps. Boerhave values
this work highly and it is his daily recreation” (Blunt 2001,
p. 124).
Linnaeus’ tables (see Fig. 2b) provided a simpler and
more practical tool for classification to more people, which
included amateur botanists, gardeners, and travelers than
other systems then in use. The botanical system then
generally in use was by the famous 17th century French
botanist, Joseph Pitton Tournefort. He also based his
classification on the structure of the flower and the fruit but
denied the sexuality of plants. Tournefort maintained the
old division of plants into herbs, trees, and shrubs. He also
emphasized classification on genera and he believed that
people should be able to memorize the 698 natural genera
encompassing the 10,000 species then known (Farber,
2001).
Although Linnaeus was confident that his new system was
a great improvement on older systems, he never claimed
that it was altogether a natural system of classification. He
wrote:
“No natural system of plants, though one or the other
approaches it quite closely, has so far been constructed;
nor do I contend that this system is really natural (perhaps
some other time I may issue fragments of one); nor can it
become a natural system before all details in connection
with our system will be known. In the meantime, however,
as long as a natural system is lacking, artificial systems
will definitely be needed.” (Linnaeus 1735, p. 23).
We must note here that the terms ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’
systems have more to do with the number of characteristics
chosen to divide a collection into groups rather than the
nature of those characteristics themselves. Linneaus
“recognized that organisms could be classified into major
groups by two main methods, one using the natural
characters, i.e. a large number of characters in association
and one using only artificial characters, i.e. a few selected
for convenience in dividing a mass of objects somehow into
groups” (Stearn, 2001, p. 246).
Binomial Nomenclature
Along with a systematic and methodical system of
classifying things in nature, Linnaeus also placed great
importance on name-giving. Linnaeus has done a lot of
work in other areas of biology but his introduction of a
binomial nomenclature for plants and animals is considered
to be his most useful contribution to the field. By
international agreement among botanists, Linnaeus’ works
are the starting-points for nomenclature in biology: the
Species Plantarum (1753), together with his Genera
Plantarum (5th ed., 1754) for naming plants and the
Systema Naturae, vol. 1 (10th ed., 1758) for naming animals
(Stearn, 2001). Based on the starting point for botanical
nomenclature, all botanical names before 1753 are not
accepted into modern nomenclature, including the ones
coined by Linnaeus himself before he published Species
Plantarum.
The two-word naming of plants and animals using one
word to refer to a general grouping (genus) and the other to
refer to the specific (species) has had a long tradition of use
before Linnaeus. Linnaeus, however, was the first to
champion uniform use in naming plants and animals. Stearn
(2001) notes that Linnaeus coined Latin or internationally
usable Latin forms of names for about 4, 400 species of
animals and 7, 700 species of plants and has linked these
names with descriptions, diagnoses, and illustrations which
stabilized their use.
Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements
Dmitri Mendeleev 1834 –1907
Mendeleev was a 35-year old professor of chemistry at St.
Petersburg University in 1869 when he drafted the tabular
classification of elements that would lead him to discover
the periodic law of chemical elements. He drafted the table
as part of his effort to write the second volume of a twovolume textbook, Principles of Chemistry, for his students.
New chemical elements were being discovered – 70 known
elements identified by their atomic weights at that time.
This growing number of elements presented new challenges
in how to classify and organize them and Mendeleev took
on the challenge. Gordin (2004, p.43) emphasizes that
“Mendeleev was not concerned in 1869 with establishing a
basic law of chemistry. He was concerned with writing a
textbook for young chemists at St. Petersburg University.”
But Morris (2003) writes that Mendeleev had long been
concerned that “chemistry had no guiding principle” and
this has motivated him to find some order or pattern
somewhere.
Mendeleev’s initial grouping of the elements by similarity
of their properties in the first volume was not ordered in
any sequence and he tried to address this in the second
volume. Morris (2003) describes the process by which
Mendeleev organized the elements. Mendeleev first made
up cards for each of the 63 elements on which he wrote the
atomic weight of the element and its most important
chemical and physical properties. Atomic weight at that
time was determined by carefully measuring the
proportions, by weight, of the elements forming a
compound (as contrasted with the routine use of mass
spectrography today). Mendeleev asked several chemists all
over Europe to send him the atomic weights that they had
obtained. He wrote the figures on his cards as they arrived
and he did his own chemical experiments to verify the
figures. He then arranged the cards in order of increasing
atomic weight, beginning with hydrogen, the lightest, and
ending with uranium, the heaviest at that time. “Then he
pored over the cards for days, looking for patterns. Finally,
he pinned the cards on the wall, putting similar elements in
horizontal rows. He looked at the table that this formed,
made changes, and pinned the cards on the wall again”
(Morris, 2003, p. 165).
Through this process of pinning cards in horizontal rows
by increasing atomic weight, Mendeleev observed the same
kinds of properties after every seven elements. This pattern
had been previously observed by John Newlands (of
England) six years earlier though he did not show a
complete table. Newlands grouped elements with analogous
properties and observed that many pairs of elements with
analogous properties differed in atomic weight by 8 or 16
units. He called this the Law of Octaves. Before Newlands,
Johann Dobereiner, a professor of chemistry in Germany,
discovered a Law of Triads in 1817. Dobereiner has
observed that the middle member of a triad has the mean
weight of the two flanking members. Scerri (2001) notes
however that Dobereiner’s triads did not concern elements
but instead their compounds.
Van Spronsen (1969, p. 134) describes Mendeleev’s
method of arriving at the periodic system as “something
(a)
(b)
Figure. 3. (a) A draft of Mendeleev’s periodic system dated 17 Feb 1869. (b) The first published form of
Mendeleev’s periodic system. Notice the gaps with question marks for elements that Mendeleev suspected existed. One
has to rotate the table by 90 degrees clockwise to see the resemblance to the horizontal rows and vertical columns that
we are familiar with today. (Source: Gordin, 2004. Red circling mine.)
like solving a puzzle.” Mendeleev continued puzzling by
making sketches on paper (see Fig. 3a for an example of
Mendeleev’s early sketches).
We can see here that Mendeleev adopted the plane tabular
representation with vertical periods, a representation also
favored by his contemporaries. But in comparing
Mendeleev’s system (see Fig. 3b) with the systems of many
scientists who also attempted to represent the analogies
between elements, particularly that of Lothar Meyer’s,
Mendeleev’s rival for the honor of discovering the periodic
system, Van Spronsen (1969, p. 134) shows that
Mendeleev’s system “encompasses almost all the facets of a
true periodic system of elements and should therefore be
seen as the culmination of the period of discovery.” Van
Spronsen especially mentions the following aspects of
Mendeleev’s system:
1.
the division into main and subgroups
2.
the vacant spaces left for undiscovered
elements together with the prediction of
some of their properties, i.e., the
homologues of aluminum and silicon
3.
the classification of the transition metals
4.
the reversal of tellurium-iodine.
Van Spronsen (1969, p.135) comments that “Mendeleev’s
work was so brilliant precisely because he knew nothing of
the studies of his contemporaries, which had been published
on the same subject since 1862.” Mendeleev has studied in
France and Germany on a grant from the Russian
government from 1859-1860 (Morris, 2003). During that
time, he was able to attend a very important congress of
chemists at Karlsruhe in 1860 where he heard Cannizzaro
speak on a solution to the confusions surrounding the
concept of atomic weight. Lothar Meyer also attended the
congress. Newlands was not able to. Mendeleev probably
made some important acquaintances, especially those he
asked for figures of atomic weights later, but scientific
communications and publications were still difficult at that
time and Russia was considered backward compared to the
other countries in Europe.
Confident of the validity of the periodic law and his
predictions of the existence of unknown elements,
Mendeleev would later scour international scientific
literature to see if his predictions were confirmed (Gordin,
2004). Indeed, the first of these would occur in 1875 when
eka-aluminum (named Gallium) was discovered in France.
This drew attention to Mendeleev’s periodic system. The
scientific world would be more astonished at the predictive
powers of Mendeleev’s periodic system when eka-boron
(scandium) and eka-silicon (germanium) were discovered in
1879 in Sweden and 1886 in Germany, respectively.
The Graphic Representation of the Periodic System
That Mendeleev abstracted periodicity out of the context
presented by sketches of an arrangement of the chemical
elements points to the major role that graphic representation
played in the discovery of the periodic law. Mendeleev was
confident in his predictions of new elements and in his
corrections of wrong atomic weights but he was hesitant
about the best way to represent the periodic law. He was
very sure of the simplicity of the periodic law but struggled
with an adequate representation of the complexity of the
relationships between the elements.
Mendeleev stated the periodic law as follows:
“The properties of the elements as well as the forms
and properties of their compounds are in a periodic
dependence or, expressing ourselves algebraically, form a
periodic function of the atomic weight of the elements”
(Mendeleev, 1891, p. 16, quoted in Bensaude-Vincent,
2001, p. 134).
Bensaude-Vincent (2001, p. 134) writes that the use of the
term ‘function’ instead of the more neutral term
‘dependence’ “emphasized the quantitative treatment of
analogies: the atomic weight of the elements, being a
common and measurable property, allowed systematic and
accurate comparisons of the individual elements.” She
suggests that Mendeleev could have expressed his function
by means of a curve – the elements arranged along the axis
of an abscissa according to their atomic weights and the
value of one of one of their chemical or physical properties
on the vertical axis. This solution was used by Meyer, but
was rejected by Mendeleev for the following reasons:
“The method, although graphic, has the theoretical
disadvantage that it does not in anyway indicate the
existence of a limited number of elements in each period.
There is nothing for instance in this method of expressing
the law of periodicity to show that between magnesium and
aluminum there can be no other element with an atomic
weight of say 25, atomic volume 13, and in general having
properties between those of these two elements. The actual
periodic law does not correspond with a continuous
change of properties, with a continuous variation of atomic
weight – in a word, it does not express an uninterrupted
function – and as the law is purely chemical, starting from
the conceptions of atoms and molecules which combine in
multiple proportions, with intervals (not continuously) it,
above all, depends on there being but a few types of
compounds which are arithmetically simple, repeats
themselves, and offered no uninterrupted transitions, and
therefore each period can only contain a definite number of
members” (Mendeleev, 1891, p. 19, quoted in BensaudeVincent, 2001, p. 135).
Mendeleev was probably aware of the difficulty of having
to draw a curve for each of the properties covered by the
periodic law if he had chosen to express his function by
means of a graphic curve. His priority seemed to be to show
the discontinuity of chemical phenomena based on the two
fundamental laws of definite and multiple combinations.
Bensaude-Vincent (2001) points out that Mendeleev’s
emphasis on the discontinuity of chemical phenomena is
linked to his definition of the object of his classification –
elements as opposed to simple substances. Mendeleev
(1879) stressed this distinction in the following statement:
“Even as, up to Laurent and Gerhardt, the words
‘molecule’, ‘atom’, and ‘equivalent’, were used one for
the other indiscriminately in the same manner, so now the
terms ‘simple body’ and ‘element’ are often confounded
one with the other. They have however, each a distinct
meaning, which is necessary to point out, so as to prevent
confusion of terms in philosophical chemistry. A ‘simple
body’ is something material, metal or metalloid, endowed
with physical properties and capable of chemical
reactions. The idea of molecule corresponds with the
expression of a simple body (…) But in opposition to this,
the name of ‘element’ must be reserved for characterizing
the material particles which form simple and compound
bodies, and which determine their behavior from a
chemical and physical point of views. The word ‘element’
calls to the mind the idea of an atom; carbon is an
element; coal, diamond and graphite are simple bodies.”
(p. 243)
We have to understand here that even though Mendeleev
connected the word ‘element’ to the idea of an atom, he did
not take the structure of atoms as his starting point. He
emphasized that the most important aspect of the periodic
system was the existence of a periodic law, not of atoms as
discrete physical bodies, much less that atoms might have
substructures. According to Bensaude-Vincent, Mendeleev
was trying to identify the cause of the discontinuity of
chemical combinations and that he identified it to be the
elements. In Mendeleev’s classification system, elements
are true individuals identified by a numerical property, their
atomic weight. The periodic law, Mendeleev (1891) wrote,
“expresses the properties of the real elements, and not of
what may be termed their manifestations visually known to
us. The external properties of the elements and compounds
are in periodic dependence on the atomic weight of the
elements only because these external properties are
themselves the result of the properties of the real elements
forming the isolated elements or the compound. “
Mendeleev favored the table because it seemed to be the
best format that could represent the discontinuity of
chemical phenomena but he was also aware that he was
breaking the sequence of the elements from hydrogen to
uranium. “In reality,” wrote Mendeleev (1879, p. 291), “the
sequence of elements is uninterrupted and to a certain
extent represents a spiral function.” He did draw several
spiral systems to express the periodic law. He even
considered a cubical system (van Spronsen, 1969). But ‘he
stuck to the compact form of the table based on short series
never exceeding eight members” (Bensaude-Vincent, 2001,
p. 141)
(a)
(b)
Figure 4: A few examples of the hundreds of ways to represent the periodic law of the elements. (a) Spiral similar to
a triple lemniscate by Charles Janet, 1928. (b) Helix with four sizes of revolutions on four separate axes by Paul
Giguere, 1966. (Source: Mazurs, 1974)
Mendeleev’s tabular arrangement is only one of the
hundreds of ways to arrange the chemical elements. There
are so many that a classification of these arrangements
themselves has been done by Mazurs (1957, 1974). Mazurs
surveyed and analyzed approximately 700 periodic tables
that were drawn up between 1871 and 1971, reduced the
number to 146 different forms of periodic charts then
classified these into types, classes, and then divisions based
on the length of the periods in the tables. Mazurs also
classified the tables according to their dimensional graphic
representation – there are helical, spiral, cylindrical, and
conic graphic representations of the periodic table of
elements. For Mazurs (1974, p. xi), this diversity represents
“the ability of the human mind to give disparate forms to
the same body of matter.” For Bensaude-Vincent (2001),
this great diversity in the visual representation of the
periodic law is a striking contrast to the stability of the long
rectangular matrix that we now regard as an icon of the
order of nature. Bensaude-Vincent notes the irony that the
long rectangular matrix as we are now very familiar with
was the only form Mendeleev definitely abandoned in his
attempts to adequately express the periodic law. The short
periods that Mendeleev preferred are more suitable for
teaching the behavior of and relationships between
chemicals. The long form we now are used today seems to
be a stable compromise between the use of the periodic
table as a teaching tool and as a map to the inner structures
of the atoms of chemical elements.
Pamphlets of a Library. The manuscript consisted of only
44 pages with a preface written in the third person. It then
lists the 10 main classes (9 “special libraries” plus a
Generalities class) which are then further subdivided
decimally into divisions and subdivisions. The manuscript
also includes an alphabetical subject index with the Class
Number/s next to each subject. The Class Number is to be
used as a locator for resources under the corresponding
subject either in the Subject Catalogue, Shelf Catalogue, or
on the shelves.
Dewey Decimal Classification
Dewey was in his early 20s and was working as Assistant
Librarian at Amherst College when he devised his system.
Dewey’s early readings that helped him structure his work
with libraries include:
Melvil Dewey 1851-1931
Melvil Dewey published the first edition of his system
anonymously in 1876. He titled it “A Classification and
Subject Index for Cataloging and Arranging the Books and
Dewey (1876) acknowledges that “theoretically, the
division of every subject into just nine heads is absurd.” In
the preface, he explains that
“philosophical theory and accuracy have been made
to yield to practical usefulness. The impossibility of making
a satisfactory classification of all knowledge as preserved
in books, has been appreciated from the first, and nothing
of the kind attempted. Theoretical harmony and exactness
has been repeatedly sacrificed to the practical
requirements of the library or to the convenience of the
department in the college.”
Theory notwithstanding, it is perhaps the very simplicity
and practicality of the Dewey Decimal system which makes
it the world’s most widely used general library
classification today. It is now in its 22nd edition and it is
available both in print and electronic versions. It also has an
abridged version, in print and electronic formats, tailored
for smaller collections.
-
Edward Edwards’ “Memoirs of Libraries.”
-
Charles C Jewett’s “A Plan for Stereotyping Titles.”
-
William Torrey Harris’ article on book classification
which appeared in the Journal of Speculative
Philosophy.
-
Nathaniel Shurtleff’s pamphlet entitled “A Decimal
System for the Arrangement and Administration of
Libraries” privately printed in 1856.
Dewey makes special mention of the Nuovo Sistema di
Catalogo Bibliografico Generale of Natale Battezzati, of
Milan, as perhaps his “most fruitful source of ideas.” But
according to Wiegand (1996, p. ), it was probably
Shurtleff’s pamphlet which gave Dewey his Eureka moment
– “use decimals to number a classification of all human
knowledge in print” and “marry the decimal system to
library administration and arrangement.”
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is a generalpurpose classification system and for that, the division and
subdivision of knowledge beginning with ten main classes
seemed to have served the purpose well. It is also worth
noting some features of the scheme that has made it useful
to many libraries.
Ranganathan’s faceted classification
(Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan 1892-1972)
Ranganathan started his work on faceted classification in
1924 while he was in England for observational studies at
the School of Librarianship at London. He was there as the
first librarian of the University of Madras. He taught
mathematics before accepting the librarianship. He has
toured more than a hundred libraries in the United
Kingdom and has observed that most of these libraries used
the Dewey Decimal Classification. He found DDC rigid
and tried to find a better way to classify documents. On his
account, Ranganathan (1967, p. 106) describes the event
that inspired him to develop a faceted classification.
“I could not then say that what was needed was a faceted
classification. But something was engaging my thought
continuously. While in that condition, I happened to see a
Meccano set in one of the Selfridges Stores in London. That
gave me the clue. It made me feel that the class number of
a subject should really be got by assembling ‘Facet
Numbers’ found in several distinctive schedules, even as a
toy is made by assembling an assortment of parts.”
Mnenomics
Dewey recognized the recurrence of certain subjects
within and across the main classes and divisions so he used
mnemonics to help users “in determining the character of
any book simply from its call number as recorded on the
book, on all its catalogue and cross reference cards, on the
ledger, and in the check box.” So in DDC, we find
hundreds of these numerical mnemonics as in 1 for China
(931 in Ancient History, 951 in Modern History, under
Asia, 491 in Languages, Chinese, etc). Chan, 1994, notes
that this feature in DDC shows its considerable analyticsynthetic capabilities.
Relative Index/Relative Location
That books can be arranged in relation to other books
instead of a definite location on shelves is not often
recognized as an innovation and we take it for granted that
it is plainly commonsense to arrange it that way. But before
Dewey introduced relative location, books in many libraries
had absolute locations, that is, the class number used then
were also used as the location number and the shelf
number. For example, a class number like 513-11 signified
the 11th book on shelf 513 or alcove 5, range 1, shelf 3.
Dewey did away with all this by disassociating the class
number from a shelf number.
Figure 5: A Meccano set. Not unlike Lego sets.
To Ranganathan, the parts or components define facets.
He defines a facet as “a generic term used to denote any
component – be it a basic subject or an isolate – of a
Compound Subject, and also its respective ranked forms,
terms, and numbers” (Ranganathan, 1967, p. 88). So
according to him, we may speak of Basic Facet, Isolate
Facet, Language Facet, Property Facet, Author Facet, etc.
Assembling these facets involves analyzing a document into
a series of transformations from an ‘expressive title’ to a
class number for a subject. This class number is made up of
two or three ordinal numbers which, when taken together,
fixes the position of the document relative to others. This
process is to fulfill what Ranganathan calls the Five Laws
of Library Science:
1.
Books are for use
2.
Every reader his book
3.
Every book its reader
4.
Save the time of the reader (and its corollary –
Save the time of the staff)
5.
Library is a growing organism.
However, Ranganathan (1967, p.) admits that “millions
and millions of isolate ideas, facets, and subjects confuse
and taunt us at the phenomenal level…We must escape
from this situation. A suitable method of escape would be
to descend from the phenomenal level nearer and nearer to
the seminal level.” This seminal level to Ranganathan is
best represented by five fundamental categories as follows,
in increasing difficulty of identification:
1.
Time – “in accordance with what we commonly
understand by that term.” Millenium, century,
decade, year, and so on are its manifestations.
2.
Space – as with time, in accordance with its
usual significance. “The surface of the earth, the
space inside it, and the space outside it” are
manifestations of space.
3.
Energy – ‘its manifestation is action of one kind
or another. The action may be among and by all
kinds of entities – inanimate, animate,
conceptual, intellectual, and intuitive.”
4.
Matter – its manifestations are of two kinds –
Material, which is what an entity is made of, e.g.
steel, timber, or Property, e.g. being 2 feet wide
and 8 ft long. Both are intrinsic to the entity but
are not the entity itself.
5.
Personality – Ranganathan regarded this
category as the most difficult to identify. “It is
too elusive. It is ineffable.” The process of
identifying it is a Method of Residues – “if a
certain manifestation is easily determined not to
be one of Time, Space, Energy, or Matter, it is
taken to be the manifestation of the fundamental
category, Personality.”
The above 5 categories are best represented with the
acronym PMEST – in decreasing concreteness. Although
the category Personality is the most concrete, it is also the
most difficult to identify as noted above.
The Five Laws of Library Science and the Five
Fundamental Categories sound simple but the formulations
of Ranganathan’s theory of faceted classification are replete
with terms, laws, canons, postulates, principles and devices
which he explained with several references to fundamental
texts in Hinduism. To many classification researchers in the
West, these are esoteric concepts (cite references). For
example, LaBarre (2004) quotes Phyllis Richmond,
considered one of the experts in faceted classification in the
US, as not “able to make head or tail of the great volumes
of stuff that comes from the Ranganathan school.”
However, these same people have agreed that new
approaches to classification of knowledge that are more
hospitable to the burgeoning increase in information were
badly needed and have credited Ranganathan for pioneering
faceted classification in the organization of information.
Furthermore, Ranganathan’s Colon Classification, although
not used outside of India and used in a few libraries in India
itself, “provided an experimental test-bed” (Mills, 2004)
for the development of faceted classification.
Ranganathan’s Colon Classification was considered not
useful for general classification schemes (Mills, 2004) but
many found it useful for special collections and purposes.
The Classification Research Group (CRG) in the UK has
borrowed some of Ranganathan’s ideas in their work on
constructing special classification schemes to correct the
shortcomings and limitations of general classifications
schemes such as the Dewey Decimal and the Library of
Congress classification schemes. Prieto-Diaz (1991)
considered Ranganathan’s faceted approach to library
classification very helpful in the design of a reusable
software component library for the GTE Data Services
Asset Management Program and for the steps taken at the
Contel Technology Center for furthering reuse technology.
Kwasnik (1992) notes how Ranganathan’s ideas were used
to classify computer software for re-use, patents, books, and
art objects based on selected properties of these objects.
Starr (1998) compares Ranganathan’s faceted classification
with Glaser’s and Strauss’ grounded theory as used in
sociology and anthropology to make sense of how disparate
and diverse viewpoints are integrated in a representational
system. Svenonius (1992) credits Ranganathan for giving
some credibility to the “science” in library science.
Discussion
What does it mean to have a good organization of
information? We have mentioned at the start that it should
provide us with speed and reliability of access to
information, consistency and economy of use over time
with different people, and a better understanding of
information, etc. What features of the classification
schemes we have examined give us these advantages?
It appears that schemes that could provide a map of the
positions of entities relative to each other allow for the most
speed and reliability of access. With Linneaus’ sexual
classification of plants, the map came in the form of tables
showing the genera and species of plants according to the
number and location of their sexual parts. These tables of
genera and species were further embedded in the higher
taxons in Linnaeus taxonomy – family, order, class,
kingdom. Users can follow the tables and identify plants
that are males, females, or hermaphrodites and can follow
the families and orders to which they belong by going up
the taxonomic hierarchy.
In Mendeleev’s periodic table (1869), the table shows an
ascending order of elements according to their atomic
weight with elements falling in vertical periods (horizontal
later) with gaps left for unknown elements suspected to
exhibit the properties of an element in that position relative
to others in the table. The user looking at these tables can
readily see a series and groupings of elements showing
similar properties as well as the gaps where elements
should be.
The map formed in Dewey’s system is hierarchical in
format like in Linnaeus taxonomy. But unlike a biological
taxonomy with its implications of inheritance and
evolutionary origins, a hierarchical organization of classes
and divisions of the subjects of books can only imply
broader and narrower relationships (with devices that point
to horizontal or associative relationships). The hierarchy in
Dewey’s system is formed by the assignment of a decimal
system of notation that can expand or contract according to
the specificity or generality of a subject. Users of a
hierarchical system can go up or down these relationships
to locate a general or specific subject or follow See or See
also pointers to related subjects.
The notations formed through faceted classification in
Ranganathan’s system should also tell the user the
specificity or generality of a subject and its position in a
grouping of related subjects but unlike the periodic table of
elements, the patterns and relationships in Ranganathan’s
system were not made explicit through a table or an easily
visualizable notational system.
We should note here that the arrangement of objects or
entities in a sequence that a user can easily follow depend
on a numerical relationship between them. With the
organization of natural objects as in Linnaeus’ and
Mendeleev’s systems, this relationship comes from a
quantifiable characteristic or property of the objects
themselves – number of stamens and pistils and atomic
weight respectively. It must be pointed however that these
quantifiable properties are not self-evident. Although we
may think flowers are plain to see, it took careful
observations and comparisons by Linnaeus to choose the
number of stamens and pistils as his basis of classification
of plants. Atomic weights were not definite numbers that
can be easily determined. Chemists made estimates through
careful and precise quantitative analysis of as many
compounds of an element as possible. Many times, they had
to make adjustments to their measurements when these did
not fit with other measurements. Even with modern
spectrography, the measurement of atomic mass has to take
into consideration that elements do not exist in nature
having absolute mass. Many elements have isotopes. It is
important to point out also the property initially used to
arrange the elements in order (atomic weight) was later
found out inadequate to account for some regularities in the
properties of some elements. Henry Moseley determined in
1913 that the atomic number of the atoms of the elements is
more reliable than atomic weight in arranging the elements
in order and has been used ever since in arranging the
periodic table.
The notational systems in the DDC and Colon
Classification are not based on quantifiable properties of
the objects that they organize. They are ordinal numbers or
symbols used to bring together groupings of subjects and to
arrange documents in a meaningful sequence. One could
argue however that if subjects are inherent properties of
documents, then the process of transforming them into
notations should make notations carriers of inherent
properties of documents. Such seemed to be the confidence
that drove Ranganathan to focus on notation as the
expression of work done in his planes of ideas and terms.
But it seems that in practice, the process does not always
start with the ideas or subjects in a document. Ranganathan
struggled with this but the flaw in the process can best be
expressed by a critique made by Patrick Wilson. Wilson
(1967) was very skeptical that the subjects of documents
can readily be determined and he noted this indeterminacy
in Ranganathan’s examples in teaching the Colon
Classification. Wilson writes,
“S. R. Ranganathan’s discussions of what he calls
“canalization” might be expected to furnish the required
instructions [about how one goes about identifying the
subjects of a writing]; but in fact they do not do so. Rather,
they guide the classifier towards a particular sort of verbal
formulation of a statement of the subject of a writing, one
so corresponding to the structure of the classification
system that “translation” of the verbal formulation into the
“language of ordinal numbers” becomes mechanical. …
the examples given are always of translating a verbal
formulation into the classificatory language, never of
discovering what the book is about.” (1967, p. 73, footnote
9).
While one may quibble with Wilson on this and go on and
on about subjects and documents, the question of whether it
is desirable for classification schemes to aim for depth of
content in its representations must be raised. Would
Linnaeus’ system have been more useful if it explicitly
made references to genes and phylogeny? Would
Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements have been more
useful if it explicitly made references to electrons and
quantum theory? Similarly, would it make the DDC more
useful to incorporate into its scheme the capacity to classify
precisely the minutest idea or subject in a document as
Ranganathan aimed to do?
Or is there a an optimal level of representation and
organization where a classification scheme can best serve as
a practical guide to the properties, relations, and locations
of entities as experienced in everyday life while at the same
time serve as powerful heuristics to deeper structures,
content, and relations as needed for higher abstractions
about our world?
Conclusion
Among the four classification schemes that have been
surveyed in this study, Mendeleev’s periodic table of
elements stands out as meeting most of the criteria that we
listed as to what makes a good organization of information.
Aside from the usual information retrieval criteria of ease
of use, speed and reliability and the administrative criteria
of economy and consistency of use over time and with
different people, the periodic table has made it possible to
see gaps in a sequenced order which led to discoveries that
would transform the domain of chemistry and later physics.
What property or properties of information can we use to
organize information objects that will reveal gaps about our
knowledge of a specific domain and which can lead us to
discoveries or novel ideas? Do information organizers have
to be experts in a specific knowledge domain to be able to
do this? Mendeleev was a chemist but we still wonder
whether the process he went through to observe the
repetitions of properties after a number of elements could
have been observed by somebody with a basic knowledge
of chemistry. Would that person have known what to look
for and be alert for possible patterns?
been able to handle well. But a big part of Ranganathan’s
system is the search for the most helpful sequence of the
combinations of facets as well as the sequence of items on
physical shelves and seemed to have never reconciled his
march towards depth classification and his quest for
absolute syntax. Ranganathan, during the 1960s until his
death, recognized that the physical limitations can be
overcome with the rise of computers and it seems like his
ideas have found their fruitful applications in software reuse. It would be interesting to see if Ranganathan’s focus
on syntax will have any place on the Semantic Web (at least
on the side of communicating semantic meaning to
machines). Or Ranganathan’s efforts to recede from the
phenomenal into the seminal might be a lesson for us to
find the best position between the two to achieve an optimal
form of organization of information.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank William Jones for the initial idea and for
supervising this independent study.
References
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). Graphic representations of the
periodic system of chemical elements. In U. Klein (ed.). Tools
and Modes of Representation in the Laboratory Sciences.
Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Along the line of foreshadowing later discoveries,
Linnaeus sexual classification system, with its emphasis on
the central role of reproduction in the continuity and origin
of the species, can be said to have fortituously selected
those properties of living things that have connections both
to Darwin’s theory of natural selection and to the
discoveries in genetics. On the practical side of
organization, Linnaeus’ taxonomy and binomial
nomenclature have helped biologists communicate with
each other more consistently in identifying exemplars of
species as well as new species being discovered.
Blunt, W. (2001). Linnaeus: the compleat naturalist. London:
Princeton University Press.
With regards to the classification of books, documents,
and other forms of information resources, Dewey and
Ranganathan have had to deal with the tension between the
organization of the intellectual content of information
resources and the management of systems that allowed for
better physical access to these resources on the shelves of
libraries. Dewey’s system seemed to have leaned more to
the practical side of organization and was able to serve the
needs of hundreds of public libraries in the US and many
countries around the world. However, implicit in its
hierarchical structures are features that are open to faceted,
analytic, and synthetic combinations of subjects and these
have been exploited over its many editions (will explain in
main text later). Ranganathan’s system on the other hand
seemed to have leaned more towards uncovering the deep
structure and content of books and documents which its
faceted, analytic, and synthetic capabilities should have
Edwards, E. (1859). Memoirs of libraries: Including a handbook
of library economy. London
Bock, W. (2004). Species: the concept, category, and taxon.
Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research,
42(): 178-190.
Dewey, M. (1876). A classification and subject index for
cataloguing and arranging the books and pamphlets of a
library. Fascimile reprinted by Forest Press Division, Lake
Placid Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2/12/05 from Project
Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/2/5/1/12513/12513h/12513-h.htm.
Farber, P. (2000). Finding order in nature: the naturalist
tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson. Baltimore, Md.: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Garfield, E (1984). A Tribute to S. R. Ranganathan, the Father of
Indican Library Science. Part 1. Life and Works. In Essays of
an Information Scientist 7 (1984): 37-44.
Gordin, M. (2004). A well-ordered thing: Dmitrii Mendeleev and
the shadow of the periodic table. New York: Basic Books.
Harris, W. (1870). Book classification. Journal of Speculative
Philosophy, 4(): 114-29.
Jewett, C. (1851). A plan for stereotyping by separate titles, and
for forming a general stereotyped catalogue of public libraries
in the United States. Washington, D. C.:
Klein, U. (Ed.) (2001). Tools and Modes of Representation in the
Laboratory Sciences. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Kwasnik, B. (1992). The legacy of facet analysis. In R.N. Sharma
(Ed). S.R. Ranganathan and the West (pp. 98-111). New Delhi,
India: Sterling.
La Barre, K. (2004). The art and science of classification: Phyllis
Allen Richmond, 1921-1997. Library Trends, 52(4): 765-791.
Larson, J. (1971). Reason and experience: the representation of
natural order in the work of Carl von Linné. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to library classification.
Bombay: Asia Pub. House.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1965). The Colon classification. New
Bruswick, N.J., Graduate School of Library Service, Rutgers,
the State University.
Ranganathan, S.R. (1962). Elements of library classification.
Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Scerri, E. (2001). The Periodic Table: the ultimate paper tool in
chemistry. In U. Klein (ed.). Tools and Modes of
Representation in the Laboratory Sciences. Dordrecht,
Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Linnaeus, Carolus (1964). Systema Naturae, 1735. Facsimile of
the first edition, with an introduction and a first English
translation of the "Observationes" by M. S. J. Engle-Ledeboer
and H. Engel. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf.
Shurtleff, N. (1856). A decimal system for the arrangement and
administration of libraries. Boston, MA:
Mazurs, E. G. (1957). Types of Graphic Representation of the
Periodic System of Chemical Elements. La Grange, Ill.: E.
Mazurs.
Stearn, W. (2001). Appendix: Linnean Classification,
Nomenclature, and Method. In W. Blunt. Linnaeus: the
compleat naturalist. London: Princeton University Press.
Mazurs, E. G. (1974). Graphic Representations of the Periodic
System During One Hundred Years. Alabama: The University
of Alabama Press.
Svenonius, E. (1992). Ranganathan and classification science.
Libri. 42(3): 176-183.
Mendeleev, D. (1879). The periodic law of the chemical
elements. Chemical News, 40(): 243.
Mendeleev, D. (1891). Principles of Chemistry, Vol. 2. Trans.
George Kamensky. London: Longmans, Green.
Star, S. (1998). "Grounded Classifications: Grounded Theory and
Faceted Classifications." Library Trends 47: 218-252.
Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved
January 29, 2005, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
<http://www.search.eb.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/eb/ar
ticle?tocId=9073064
Mills, J. (2004). Faceted classification and logical division in
information retrieval. Library Trends, 52(3): 541-570.
Van Spronsen, J. W. (1969). The Periodic System of Chemical
Elements: A history of the first hundred years. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Co.
Morris, R. (2003). The Last Sorcerers: the path from alchemy to
the periodic table. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry Press.
Wiegand, W. (1996). The Irrepressible reformer: a biography of
Melvil Dewey. Chicago: American Library Association.
Morris, S. (2003). The navigation of biological hyperspace.
International Journal of Astrobiology, 2(2): 149-152.
Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power:
an essay on
bibliographical control. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Prieto-Diaz, R. (1991). Implementing faceted classification for
software re-use. Communications of the ACM. 34(5): 88-97.