Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
1/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 1/29
Homepage | Member Center | Join | Contact Us
Search
Brow se the Site Map
Select Language...
Member
Services
IA Network Learning IA About Us
Education Research Resources Translations
Learn > ResearchResearch Reports
Salary Survey
Industry Surveys
IA White Papers
IAI Grant Research
Featured
Research
Discover IA industry
trends, software and
education patterns
among IAs, including
our latest surveys:
2012 Salary Survey
UX Local Group
Leaders Survey
A SimplifiedModel for Facet Analysis
Dr. Louise Spiteri
Faculty of Management
School of Library and Information Studies
Dalhousie University
Halifax
Nova Scotia
Voice: (902) 494-2473
Fax: (902) 494-2451
w eb
This article originally appeared in the Canadian
Journal of Information and Library Sciencev23, 1-30 (April-July 1998). Reprinted by
permission of University of Toronto Press Incorporated. We are grateful for their permission
to republished this w ork and thank Melanie North for her ass istance.
Contents
Introduction
Problem
Purpose of the Study
Methodology
Ranganathan's Theory of Facet Analysis
CRG Theory of Facet Analysis
Outline of the Simplified Model
Conclusion
References
Appendix One: Ranganathan's Theory of Facet Analysis
Appendix Two: Classification Research Group Theory of Facet Analysis
Appendix Three: Simplified Model for Facet Analysis
INTRODUCTION
In the field of Library and Information Science (LIS), the theory of facet
analysis owes its development to two sources: S. R. Ranganathan and the
Classification Research Group (CRG). Ranganathan developed the theory
of facet analysis because he was dissatisfied with the inability of
http://iainstitute.org/documents/research/IA_Institute_Local_Leaders_Survey_2009.pdfhttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/salary_survey_2012.phphttp://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=cjils/cjils.htmlhttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/education/education.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/members/http://iainstitute.org/en/network/http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/http://iainstitute.org/en/members/http://iainstitute.org/en/network/http://iainstitute.org/en/http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=cjils/cjils.htmlhttp://www.mgmt.dal.ca/slis/PeopleGroups/profs/Spiteri/spiteri.htmlhttp://iainstitute.org/documents/research/IA_Institute_Local_Leaders_Survey_2009.pdfhttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/salary_survey_2012.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/ia_grant_research.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/white_papers.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/industry_surveys.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/salary_survey.phphttp://iainstitute.org/translations/http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/resources/resources.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/research.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/learn/education/education.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/about/http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/http://iainstitute.org/en/network/http://iainstitute.org/en/members/http://iainstitute.org/en/site-map.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/about/contact_us.phphttp://iainstitute.org/join/http://signin.iainstitute.org/http://iainstitute.org/en/http://iainstitute.org/en/8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
2/29
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
3/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 3/29
order (upper links) belonging to the same primary chain as the class or the
ranked isolate denoted by the term in question (Ranganathan1967, 208)
tend to leave some doubt as to what Ranganathan is trying to say (i.e.,
that a term's meaning and context depend upon its location in the
classification schedules). It is often necessary to read such sentences
several times before they can be understood, and even then, one may not
be certain that full comprehension has occurred and;
(b) Ranganathan's theory of facet analysis is presented as a detailed
series of 46 canons, 13 postulates and 22 principles, which many LIS
students tend to find rather intimidating.
To compound matters, the CRG has its own principles of facet analysis.
Although the CRG uses many of Ranganathan's principles as a base, it
rejects 2 major assumptions made by Ranganathan pertaining to: (a) the
choice of fundamental categories; and (b) the order of these categories
(Austin1968; Foskett, D. J.1974; Mills & Broughton1977; Vickery1960,
1966, 1975). It is unfortunate, however, that the CRG does not present itscomplete set of facet analysis principles in any one source, which means
that LIS educators and students are required to consult a variety of works
written by different members of the CRG. Vickery provides the most
comprehensive discussion of the CRG approach to facet analysis, but he
tends to assume a prior understanding of Ranganathans theory, which
might not necessarily be the case (Vickery1960, 1966). In short, what is
missing is a single, simpletofollow model of facet analysis.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to propose a simplified model for facet
analysis that incorporates the principles of facet analysis proposed by
both Ranganathan and the CRG. The purpose of this simplified model is to
act primarily as a teaching tool to introduce LIS students to a
consolidated, and hopefully easy-to-read, classification model that will
enable them to understand how faceted classification systems are
designed and how they work.
The simplified model could perhaps serve two other purposes. The model
could be used by designers of faceted classification systems and IR
thesauri, because these designers might also need to consult a variety of
sources to obtain the principles of facet analysis needed for their work.
Furthermore, the simplified model could provide criteria necessary for the
evaluation of the structural integrity of faceted classification systems and
the faceted displays of IR thesauri, especially since a relatively small
amount of work has been done in this area (Spiteri1996).
It must be stated quite clearly that this simplified model does not attempt
to supplement the immensely valuable works of Ranganathan and the
CRG; the principles contained in the simplified model are all derived from
these works. LIS students would certainly be encouraged to consult the
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
4/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 4/29
works of Ranganathan and the CRG once they have become familiarized
with the underlying principles of facet analysis contained in the simplified
model.
METHODOLOGY
The simplified model for facet analysis will be developed in the following
manner:
a) each of Ranganthan's Canons, Postulates, and Principles will be
examined with the purpose of determining whether any overlap,
redundancies, or contradictions existed among them;
b) the CRG principles of facet analysis will be examined with the
purpose of determining where they correspond or differ from Ranganathan's
theory and;
c) principles common to both Ranganathan and the CRG will be
extracted. In instances where differences or even opposit ions exist
between Ranganathan and the CRG, suggestions will be made as to which
principles to include in the simplified model.
Ranganathan divides the construction of a faceted classification system
into three Planes of Work: the Idea Plane, which involves the process of
analyzing a subject field into its component parts; the Verbal Plane, which
involves the process of choosing appropriate terminology to express these
component parts; and the Notational Plane, which involves the process of
expressing these component parts by means of a notational device
(Ranganathan1967). These three Planes of Work are a simple way of
organizing the principles of facet analysis and will thus be maintained in
the simplified model.
Whenever possible, the original names given by Ranganathan or the CRG
to their respective principles will be maintained in the simplified model. The
labels Canon and Postulate, both used by Ranganathan, will not beused in the simplified model, as many LIS students tend to find this
terminology somewhat confusing: the label Principle will be used for
every tenet found in the simplified model.
RANGANATHAN'S THEORY OF FACET ANALYSIS
Ranganathan's three planes of work are governed by sets of Canons,
Postulates, and Principles. Canons are must follow rules for facetanalysis, whereas Postulates and Principles are strongly recommended
procedures for applying facet analysis to classification systems. The Idea
Plane consists of 14 Canons, 13 Postulates, and 22 Principles; the Verbal
Plane of 4 Canons; and the Notational Plane of 19 Canons (Ranganathan
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
5/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 5/29
1967). A complete list of Ranganathan's Canons, Postulates, and
Principles may be found inAppendix One. Idea Plane: Canons for
Characteristics.
The Canon of Differentiationadvises that when dividing an entity into its
component parts, it is important to use characteristics of division (i.e.,
facets) that will distinguish clearly among these component parts. The
entity HUMAN BEINGS, for example, can be divided by the characteristic
gender, because this characteristic will produce 2 distinct component
parts, e.g.:
HUMAN BEINGS
(gender)
female
male
The Canon of Relevance states that when choosing facets by which to
divide entities, it is important to make sure that the facets reflect the
purpose, subject, and scope of the classification system. For example, it
would make perfect sense to use the facet grade to divide the entit ies
BOYS and GIRLS in a classification system designed for the discipline
EDUCATION, e.g.:
BOYS
(grade)
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
GIRLS
(grade)
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
The facet grade would not be appropriate, however, for dividing the entity
DOGS, where facets such as breed might work better. This issue of
relevance appears frequently in the theories of both Ranganathan and theCRG and plays an important part in the simplified model.
The Canon of Ascertainabilitystates that it is important to choose facets
that are definite and that can be ascertained. Ranganathan's explanation of
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
6/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 6/29
this Canon is far from clear, and his putatively illustrative example does not
help shed light on the Canon. Ranganathan suggests that date of death,
for example, should not be used as a facet, because it is impossible to
know when people will die, but the facet date of birth is appropriate,
because one can ascertain when people were born. The logic underlying
these examples appears to be on shaky ground, because date of death
could be ascertained for people who have died. Perhaps a better example
would be the use of the facet breed for DOGS, since there are sources
available that list definitively the various types of dog breeds recognized by
breeders and veterinarians. In other words, breed is an ascertainable
quality for DOGS.
The Canon of Permanenceis another area where Ranganathan causes a
degree of confusion. Ranganathan explains that facets used in a
classification system should continue to be used as long as there is no
change in the purpose of the system. The example Ranganathan provides,
however, suggests another interpretation of permanence. Ranganathan
argues that the facet colour should not be used to divide CHAMELEONS,because these entities can change their colour to match their environment.
This example suggests that permanence equates not to using the same
facets, but to using facets that reflect permanent qualities of the entity in
question. For example, a Dalmatian dog will always be a Dalmatian, thus
the facet breed represents a permanent characteristic of DOGS, although
it could be argued that the types of available dog breeds can change. It is
perhaps this latter quality that is more important in this Canon, especially
since it is reinforced in a similar CRG principle, namely, the Principle of
Permanence.
Idea Plane: Canons for Succession of Characteristics
The Canon of Concomitancestates that all the facets used to divide an
entity must be mutually exclusive, i.e., no two facets can overlap in
content. For example, when dividing the item DOGS, it should not be
possible for the terms under the facet size to appear also under the facet
colour. On the other hand, if the facets age and year of birth are used
to divide HUMAN BEINGS, they will likely produce the same divisions. The
concept of mutual exclusivity ensures that each item in the classification
system has its own unique place.
The Canon of Relevant Successionsuggests that when choosing the
citation order of facets, it is essential to ensure that this order reflect the
purpose, subject, and scope of the classification system. This Canon
appears to conflict with Ranganathan's Postulates, where, as will be
discussed later, he suggests a prescribed order for facets. This Canon
again raises the issue of ensuring that the design of a classification
system meet the practical needs of its scope and users.
The Canon of Consistent Successionstates that once a citation order of
facets has been established for a classification system, it should not be
modified unless there is a change in the purpose, subject, or scope of the
system. This Canon is important because it ensures a degree of
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
7/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 7/29
consistency and predictability in the structure of a classification system.
One wonders, however, whether this Canon could conflict with
Ranganathan's Postulates for citation order, where his suggestion that
there is one order for all facets, regardless of classification system,
implies that citation order need not be equated necessarily with the
purpose, subject, or scope of the classification system.
Idea Plane: Canons for Array
The Canon of Exhaustivenessstates that all classes and sub-classes in a
classification system should present all aspects of their parent universe.
Thus, for example, a classification of DOGS should include facets that
represent all possible aspects /properties of dogs. This Canon could be
somewhat difficult to apply and to ascertain: how does one determine
when all aspects of an entity have been represented? Does one represent
all the potential aspects of an entity, or only those that appear in thepublished literature (i.e., based upon literary warrant)? Does one represent
all the aspects of an entity that have existed in the past as well as those
that exist in the present?
The Canon of Exclusivenessstates that all classes and sub-classes
should be mutually exclusive. This Canon appears to repeat the concept
underlying the Canon of Concomitance, which pertains to the use of
mutually exclusive facets. Since in a faceted classification system,
classes are formed by the application of characteristics of division (i.e.,
facets), it seems intuitive that if Concomitance were applied,Exclusiveness would follow naturally.
The Canon of Helpful Sequencestates that the citation order of classes
and sub-classes should be relevant to the purpose, subject, and scope of
the classification system. Once again, it is possible that Ranganathan is
guilty of a certain degree of repetition. Classes are formed and divided by
the application of facets. TheCanon of Relevant Succession, which deals
with the relevant citation order of facets, would appear to incorporate, by
its very nature, the citation order of classes and sub-classes.
The Canon of Consistent Sequencestates that similar classes and sub-
classes should follow a parallel c itation order. Ranganathan does not
explain very clearly his definition of similarity. The example Ranganathan
uses is of the divide like device used in DDC, where a parallel citation
order of elements is used for different classes. Once again, this Canon
might clash with Ranganathan's Postulates, where he insists that one
citation order for facets should be used, regardless of subject or
classification system.
Idea Plane: Canons for Chain
The Canon of Decreasing Extensionstates that as one applies more and
more characteristics of division to an entity, the fewer individual aspects of
that entity will emerge (e.g., there are far fewer types of dogs than there
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
8/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 8/29
are types of mammals). This Canon assumes, perhaps, the Aristotelian
genus-species model of classification that underlies enumerative systems
such as the DDC. Decreasing extension implies an hierarchical division of
an entity, which is not the underlying principle of facet analysis. In facet
analysis, for example, DOGS can be divided by the facets size, breed,
colour, function, and so forth. It is not clear how the manifestation of
different aspects of DOGS decreases as one goes down the list of facets.
The Canon of Modulationstates that subclasses within a class should
follow a certain order, e.g.: North America-Canada-Ontario-Metropolitan
Toronto-City of York-Town of Weston. This Canon implies that a necessary
set of characteristics is required per entity; if this is the case, then this
Canon appears to overlap with the Canon of Exhaustivity. Furthermore,
Modulation implies that a specific citation order exists implicitly for a
class; if so, then this Canon contradicts the Canon of Relevant
Succession.
Idea Plane: Canons for Filiatory Sequence
TheCanon of Subordinate Classesstates that in a coalesced array , sub-
classes must appear immediately following their superordinate class. The
following example illustrates the meaning of this Canon:
CATS
(By habitat)
Wild Cats [LEVEL 1 DIVISION]
(By breed)
Mountain cats [LEVEL 2 DIVISION]
Jungle cats [LEVEL 2 DIVISION]
Domestic Cats [LEVEL 1 DIVISION]
(By breed)
Short-haired cats [LEVEL 2 DIVISION]
Long-haired cats [LEVEL 2 DIVISION]
(By function)
Hunters
Household helpers
According to this Canon, the two classes WILD CATS and DOMESTIC
CATS constitute the first level of division of the superordinate class CATS,
since they are formed by the application of the same facet (i.e., by
habitat). The sub-class MOUNTAIN CATS, constitutes the second level of
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
9/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 9/29
division because it represents a characteristic of the class WILD CAT,
which is a first level of division of CATS. Because MOUNTAIN CATS
represents another facet and level of division, it cannot appear at the same
level as WILD CATS and DOMESTIC CATS. This Canon appears to
include elements of the genus-species approach to classification, much as
is the case with the Canon of Decreasing Extension, as was discussed
earlier. It could perhaps be argued that if the mutual exclusivity of facets is
maintained, violation of the Canon of Subordinate Classesshould not
happen One wonders, therefore, whether this Canon would be necessary
with the application of the Canon of Concomitance.
The Canon of Coordinate Classesis essentially a corollary of the Canon of
Subordinate Classes, in that the former states that in a coalesced array,
coordinate classes should not be separated from each other by any
classes other than their own sub-classes. To use the CATS example
above, this would mean that classes HUNTERS and HOUSEHOLD
HELPERS must not appear between the classes WILD CATS and
DOMESTIC CATS, because the former two classes represent a differentcharacteristic of CATS than do the latter two classes. Only the classes
formed by the application of the facet by breed can appear between WILD
CATS and DOMESTIC CATS. Once again, the application of the Canon of
Concomitancewould seem to guarantee this level of separation among
classes and sub-classes.
Verbal Plane: Canons
The Canon of Contextstates that the meaning of an individual term is given
its context based upon its position in the classification system. Thiscanon is particularly useful for distinguishing among homographs, e.g.:
Baseball Cricket
(Equipment) (Equipment)
Bat Bat
Glove Wicket
In the above example, the two types of bats are clearly distinguished from
one another based upon their position in the classification system.
The Canon of Enumerationstates that the meaning of a class is made
clear by its subdivisions. The meaning and context of the class
GEOMETRY, for example, can be better understood when one looks at its
subdivisions PURE GEOMETRY, DESCRIPTIVE GEOMETRY, and
ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY. Since both the Canons of Context and
Enumerationimply that the meaning of a term is given its context based
upon its position in the classification system, it might be possible to avoidredundancy by coalescing them into one canon.
The Canon of Currencystates that the terminology used in a classification
system should reflect current usage in the subject field. This canon might
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
10/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 10/29
require the frequent updating of a classification system, especially given
the current climate of politically correct terminology, but certainly reflects
Ranganathan's insistence upon ensuring that any system be relevant to its
target audience.
The Canon of Reticencestates that the terminology used in a
classification system should not reflect bias or prejudice. The concept of a
bias-free terminology, while certainly laudable, is rather difficult to
measure. Furthermore, although a term might be biased, it could reflect
also current usage. In
Canada, for example, the term FISHING PEOPLE is often used by
newscasters to avoid the use of the possibly gender-biased term
FISHERMEN. The former term certainly conforms to theCanon of
Reticence, but does it reflect popular and current usage, as most people
still tend to use the term FISHERMEN? The two Canons of Reticenceand
Currencycould therefore be in potential conflict.
Notational Plane: Canons for the Notational Plane
Most of Ranganathan's Canons for the Notational Plane concern the
different types of notation that can be used in the design of a faceted
classification system (e.g., ordinal vs.expressive), rather than qualities
that are fundamental to all types of notation. This is perhaps an instance
where Ranganathan's training in Mathematics and his obvious love of
notation were allowed to get the better of him. It might be more accurate,
maybe, to regard Ranganathan's theories about notation as principles (i.e.,
suggestions) rather than canons (rules to follow).
The Canons of SynonymandHomonymstate, respectively, that each
subject can be represented by only one unique class number and that
each class number can represent only one unique subject. In other words,
these Canons pertain to the mutual exclusivity, if you will, of notation.
The remainder of the Notational Plane consists of converse pairs of
canons. TheCanon of Relativitystates that the number of characters or
digits in a class number should be the same as the order of the subject
represented by it, as illustrated in left column of the following example:
Physics C (Level 1 division = 1 digit) vs.
Physics QRO
Light C5 (Level 2 division = 2 digits)
Light QRU
Diffraction C5:3 (Level 3 division = 3 digits)
Diffraction QRX
The example in the right column demonstrates the application of the
Canon of Uniformity, which states that the number of digits in a class
number should be constant, whatever the order of the subject represented
by it.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
11/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 11/29
The Canon of Hierarchystates that a class number should contain a digit
to represent each level of division used to construct the number; the Canon
of Non-Hierarchystates that this need not be the case. The Canon of Co-
Extensivenessstates that in a class number, digits should be added
successively so as to represent the incidence of all characteristics used to
construct the number, e.g.:
Diseases of the stomach 616.33
Gastrit is 616.333
The above notational canons appear to be somewhat redundant, as they
state essentially that notation could either represent or not represent the
levels of division, or hierarchy of the classification system. In other words,
classificationists have a choice between using expressive (i.e.,
hierarchical) or ordinal (i.e., non-hierarchical) notation.
The Canons of Mixed Base/Pure Basesuggest that notation could be
either purely numeric or purely alphabetical, or a combination of both. The
advantage of a purely numeric notation is that numbers are international
and thus recognizable to all users. The English alphabet, for example, with
a base of 26 characters, could provide for a larger notational base; on the
other hand, these characters might not be recognizable to users not
familiar with the Roman alphabet. In either case, Ranganathan does not
suggest a preference for one type of notation over the other.
The Canons ofFaceted/Non-Faceted Notationsuggest that notation could
or could not represent the specific facets used to derive the subject, e.g.:
A DOGS B CATS
AB (breed) (breed)
AB1 Dalmatian BA Persian
AB2 Doberman BC Siamese
In the DOGS hierarchy, the letter B indicates the facet breed, thus the
class number AB2 indicates clearly the character of division used to derive
DOBERMAN. The notation BC, on the other hand, indicates simply that
SIAMESE belongs to the class CATS. Faceted notation is certainly useful
for indicating more clearly how subjects are derived, but could result in
rather lengthy notation in the case of compound subject that are derived
from different classes and facets. Once again, Ranganathan does not
suggest the use of one type of notation over another.
Notational Plane: Canons for Mnemonics
The Canons for Mnemonics are also concerned with the different types of
notation that could be used in a faceted classification system. As with the
Canons for the Notational Plane, those governing Mnemonics are
suggested approaches, rather than actual must-follow rules of
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
12/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 12/29
classification.
The Canon of Alphabetical Mnemonicssuggests that an idea could be
represented by the first letter in its name. Ranganathan himself suggests
that this is an optional feature of notation rather than a fundamental quality
of notation. The Canon of Systematic Mnemonicssuggests that notation
follow the order in which foci have been arranged under their respective
facets (i.e., according to the Principles for Helpful Sequence, which will be
discussed shortly), e.g.:
Primary H52
Secondary H53
Tertiary H54
In the above example, H53 cannot come after H54, as it follows the
sequential ordering of the foci.
The Canon of Seminal Mnemonicssuggests that concepts which are
seminally equivalent in different classes should be represented by the
same digit. According to Ranganathan, for example, Function in Political
Science is equivalent to Physiology in Biological Sciences, so the two
ideas should be represented by the same digit, e.g., 3. The determination
of seminal equivalency can be highly subjective and not necessarily
apparent to the different users of a classification system.
Principles for Helpful Sequence
The Principles for Helpful Sequenceare concerned with order in array, i.e.,
the order in which foci (or individual terms) are arranged within their
respective facets. Ranganathan does not mandate any one particular order
and provides examples of several types of arrangements. As shall be
seen, a degree of redundancy occurs in these Principles.
The Principle of Later-in-Timesuggests that if items have originated in
different times, they should be arranged in a progressive time sequence
that reflects this order. The Principle of Later-in-Evolutionsuggests that if
items belong to different stages of evolution, they should be arranged in
the appropriate evolutionary sequence. It would appear that both these
principles are concerned with chronological order, and thus could be
coalesced easily.
Ranganathan has seven Principles of Spatial Contiguity, namely:
Principle of Bottom Upwards
Principle of Top Downwards
Principle of Left to Right
Principle of Clockwise Direction
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
13/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 13/29
Principle of Counter-Clockwise Direction
Principle of Periphery to Centre
Principle of Centre to Periphery
These seven principles suggest that items could be arranged in a spatial
or geometric order (e.g., the position of planets in our solar system in
relation to the sun). The principles take into account the actual spatial
position of items, e.g., to use the solar system example, the planets could
be arranged in a left to right position, with the sun being at the furthermost
right position. These principles are another example of Ranganathan
providing rather more detail than is necessary. It might perhaps be enough
to suggest that foci could be arranged in a spatial or geometric order and
forgo seven principles that are concerned with specific spatial
arrangements.
There are two Principles of Quantitative Measure, namely, the principles of
Increasing Quantityand Decreasing Quantity. An example of the former
principle would be the arrangement of the foci Prime Minister-Executive
Party-Public. The latter principle would arrange these foci in reverse order,
namely, Public-Executive Party-Prime Minister.
The Principle of Increasing Complexitysuggests that foci could be
arranged in a simple-complex order, e.g., Geography-Mathematical
Geography-Physical Geography. The Principle of Canonical Sequence
suggests that if foci are traditionally arranged in a specific sequence, one
should conform to this sequence. The Principle of
Literary Warrantsuggests that foci may be arranged in a sequence that
reflects the decreasing quantity of documents published (or anticipated to
be published) on them. This principle could be very problematic to enforce
and to maintain, since publication trends are tenuous at best, and could
result in a rather shaky foundation upon which to base order in array.
The final principle is that ofAlphabetical Sequence, i.e., that foci be
arranged in a purely alphabetical order. This principle is a catch-all, if you
will, for those occasions when no other logical sequence of foci is
available. Furthermore, it could be argued that this sequence is the most
objective way of arranging foci, as it reflects no bias or preference on the
part of the classificationist.
Postulates
Ranganathan's 15 Postulates govern the choice and citation order of
fundamental categories/facets. The Postulate of Five Fundamental
Categoriesassumes that all subjects can be divided into five fundamental
categories: Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time (PMEST). ThePostulate of Basic Facetstates that every compound subject has a basic
facet, e.g., the subject AGRICULTURAL DISEASES has AGRICULTURE
as its basic facet, whereas ANIMAL HUSBANDRY is the basic facet for
the subject CARE OF COWS. The Postulate of Isolate Facetstates that
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
14/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 14/29
every facet in a compound subject is a manifestation of one and only one
of the five fundamental categories, e.g., an individual facet cannot
represent both Personality and Matter. This postulate seems rather
intuitive, especially if facets are mutually exclusive and represent only one
characteristic of division.
The Postulates governing the Rounds of Manifestationand Levels of
Manifestationare concerned with the citation order of facets (or, schedule
order). It is perhaps in these two areas that Ranganathan causes the most
confusion to LIS students. These Postulates are rather difficult to
understand and apply, and demonstrate a somewhat arbitrary and
inflexible approach towards the organization of classification schedules
that might not necessarily be apparent to anyone but Ranganathan. The
Postulates of Rounds for Energy,Rounds forPersonality and Matter, and
Rounds for Space and Timeare based on the primary assumption that the
five fundamental categories must be ordered in the sequence P-M-E-S-T.
In summary, the first manifestation of E ends what Ranganathan terms
Round 1 of the sequence P,M,E, e.g.: Disease [1M] Prevention [1E]. Ifany of these categories occurs a second time in the same subject, they
would be placed in Round 2, e.g.: Disease [1M] Prevention [1E]
Chemicals [2M]. The categories Space and Time may appear only in
Round 2.
The Postulate of Levelstipulates that any of the categories P,M,E,S,T
may appear more than once in a single Round: the first manifestation of a
category within a round is said to be Level 1, and so forth, e.g.: Disease
[1M] Prevention [1E] Chemicals [2M1] Toxins [2M2]. In this case,
[2M1] stands for Round 2, Level 1 Matter Facet, and [2M2] for Round 2,Level 2 Matter Facet. The Postulates for Facet Sequence(First Facet,
Concreteness, Facet Sequence within a Round, Facet Sequence within
the Last Round, and Level-Cluster) govern the order in which facets are to
be arranged within a single round. Once again, one is in danger of being
overwhelmed by the amount of information provided by Ranganathan, and
the details needed to explain these Postulates exceeds the scope of this
work. Suffice it to say that the Postulates pertaining to Rounds and Levels
are difficult to understand and apply and one is hindered further by the fact
that Ranganathan never explains clearly what is meant by the category P,
which will be discussed shortly.
Principles for Facet Sequence
The final part of Ranganathan's theory consists of Principles for Facet
Sequence, which are closely related to the Postulates of Rounds of
Manifestationand of Levels of Manifestations, since the Principles are
concerned with the citation order of facets within individual Rounds and
Levels. The rather colourful (if not confusing) names of these Principles
can be deceptive, because some of them overlap. The Wall-Pictureand
Cow-CalfPrinciples say essentially the same thing, namely, that within a
Round, different Levels of a category should be arranged in an order of
which came first. Thus, for example, Grandmother [1P1] Mother [1P2]
Daughter [1P3] are ordered to reflect the fact that a daughter cannot come
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
15/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 15/29
into existence without a mother, who in turn depends upon the
grandmother for her existence. The Whole-Organ Principlestates that the
whole item should precede its parts, e.g., CAR-WHEEL. TheActand-
Action-Actor-Tool Principlestates that the item being acted upon should
appear first, followed by the action, the person doing the action, and the
tools involved, e.g.
COTTON (actand) - SPINNING (action) - MEN (actor) - COTTON
WHEEL (tool).
CRG THEORY OF FACET ANALYSIS
The CRG theory of facet analysis is not found in any one source; rather, it
is scattered throughout a number of works written by different members of
the Group. Furthermore, the CRG does not present its theory of facet
analysis in an organized list of principles, as does Ranganathan;consequently, it can be somewhat difficult to present the CRG theory to
LIS students. The following CRG principles were culled from a variety of
sources (Austin1968; 1969;Classification Research Group 1985; Foskett,
A.C. 1996; Foskett, D.J. 1970, 1971, 1974; Mills & Broughton 1977;
Vickery 1960, 1966, 1975). The outline of the CRG theory of facet analysis
may be found inAppendix Two.
Principles for Choice of Facets
ThePrinciple of Division states that a facet must represent only onecharacteristic of division of the parent universe. This principle does not
correspond directly to any of Ranganathan's Canons, although since it
implies that facets should be homogenous and mutually exclusive,
perhaps it would be fair to say that it corresponds closely to the Canons of
Concomitance andExclusiveness.
The Principles ofHomogeneity and Mutual Exclusivitystate respectively
that facets must be homogeneous and mutually exclusive, i.e., that the
contents any two facets cannot overlap, and that each facet must
represent only one characteristic of division. The Principle of Divisionnowappears to be redundant, since its underlying premise is contained in both
these principles. These principles parallel closely Ranganathan's Canons
of Concomitanceand Exclusivenessrespectively. Finally, the Principle of
Relevance states that facets should be chosen for their relevance to the
purpose, subject, and scope of the classification system. This principle
parallels exactly Ranganathans Canon of Relevance.
The CRG provides little explanation for the Principles ofAscertainability
and Permanence. The implications of these principles appear to coincide
respectively with Ranganathans Canons ofAscertainability andPermanence, whereby facets should represent, respectively,
characteristics of division that can be measured and that represent
permanent qualities of the item being divided.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
16/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 16/29
The Principle of Fundamental Categoriesstates that there exist no
categories that are fundamental to all subjects, and that categories should
be derived based upon the nature of the subject being classified. It is in
this area that the CRG theory deviates abruptly from that of Ranganathan.
The CRG prefers to identify fundamental categories by reference to the
context of the subject itself and suggests that no one list of fundamental
categories should be imposed mechanically upon subjects. Furthermore,
the CRG believes that no one list may be necessarily exhaustive or
applicable to all subjects.
A careful look at PMEST suggests that the CRG's approach to
fundamental categories is perhaps a more viable and attractive option for
classificationists. Ranganathan's five categories have been questioned by
some classification theorists (Gopinath1986; Roberts1969). The rather
ambiguous nature of Personality has been especially criticized.
Ranganathan never explains clearly what he means by Personality and
suggests that P relies upon M,E,S,T for its identification, and that
M,E,S,T often rely upon P fortheiridentity. Different classificationsystems have been analyzed to try to isolate those categories
fundamental to all subjects. The most important of these studies was
conducted by de Grolier, who found that some categories occurred
frequently (e.g., Time, Space), but that no one list of categories is
fundamental to all subjects (Grolier1962); similar conclusions have been
reached by Shera(1965) and Ohdedar and Sengupta(1977). The CRG
approach allows classificationists to tailor categories to a specific subject,
thereby allowing for the formation of more distinct, well-defined categories.
For this reason, the CRG Principle of Fundamental Categoriesmight be a
better choice to include in a simplified model of facet analysis, especiallysince a significant number of faceted classification systems/IR thesauri
consulted use the CRG approach in their choice of fundamental categories
(Aitchison1969;American Petroleum Institute1994; British Standards
Institution1988; BSRIA1993; Croghan1981; Daniel & Mills1975; Foskett,
D. J.1963; Harris1986; Harrold1991; Long1972; Milstead1994; Mills &
Broughton1977; Petersen1994; Vernon1979; Wilmot1981).
Principles for Citation Order
The Principle of Schedule Orderstates that facets should be arranged in a
prescribed order, but that no one order is necessarily appropriate for all
facets. The citation order chosen should reflect the nature, subject, and
scope of the classification system. Once again, the CRG differs radically
from Ranganathan's suggestion that all facets should be arranged in one
order, regardless of subject (i.e., P-M-E-S-T). This deviation makes sense,
given the CRG opinion that there are no categories fundamental to all
areas of knowledge. Since the simplified model adopts the CRG approach
to the choice of fundamental categories, it will not include Ranganathan's
Postulates, since they are so specific to the schedule order of PMEST.
ThePrinciple of Order in Array suggests that foci should be arranged in
some kind of order, but that no one order is necessarily correct. The CRG
suggests that foci could be arranged in the following orders: simple to
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
17/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 17/29
complex; complex to simple; spatial/geometric; chronological (including
evolutionary and historical orders); and alphabetical. These orders
correspond virtually identically to Ranganathan's Principles for Helpful
Sequence. The CRG does not agree with Ranganathan that literary warrant
be used to arrange foci because of the tenuous and unpredictable nature of
publication trends. The simplified model will therefore include a
combination of both CRG and Ranganathan suggestions for order in array.
Principles for Notation
Unlike Ranganathan, the CRG is not concerned principally with the style
of notation, e.g., whether the notation should be pure or mixed, faceted or
non-faceted, and so forth. Rather, the CRG principles are concerned with
qualities that should underlie all types of notation used in a classification
system. For this reason, the CRG principles for notation will be included in
the simplified model, as well as the Canons forSynonymandHomonym,
which represent also these fundamental qualities of notation.
ThePrinciple of Filing Orderstates that a notational system should reflect
the filing order of subjects. This type of notation would reflect the citation
order underlying the classification system. Although there is no
Ranganathan equivalent to this principle, filing order can be useful when
arranging items on a shelf or in a classified catalogue, as the notation
would allow searchers to follow the order of subjects in the classification
system (e.g., general to complex).
The Principle of Hospitalitystates that notation should allow for the
addition of new subjects, facets, and foci, at any point in the classificationsystem. Although there is no direct equivalent to this principle in
Ranganathan's theory of facet analysis, it would appear to make good
sense to be able to interpolate new subjects in the notation of a
classification system, especially given the growth of published information.
ThePrinciple of Ordinal/Expressive Notationsuggests that notation could
be either ordinal or expressive, but does not state a preference for either
type. This principle corresponds directly to Ranganathans Canons of
Relativity,Uniformity, Hierarchy, andNon-Hierarchy. Because this principle
and the aforementioned Canons are concerned with the type of notation,rather than with qualities fundamental to all types of notation, they will not
be included in the simplified model.
OUTLINE OF THE SIMPLIFIED MODEL
The simplified model is a streamlined version of the theories of
Ranganathan and the CRG. The model is divided into Ranganathan's three
Planes of Work, and uses the term Principle, rather than Canon orPostulate. The outline of the simplified model may be found inAppendix
Three.
Idea Plane: Principles for the Choice of Facets
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
18/29
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
19/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 19/29
Canonical Order
Increasing Quantity
Decreasing Quantity
(b) Consistent Succession: based upon Ranganathans Canon of
Consistent Succession. Although this canon has no equivalent in the CRG
theory, it has been maintained because it helps ensure consistency in the
structure of classification systems. It is suggested that the Principle of
Consistent Successionbe expanded to state that the citation order of
both facets and foci should be maintained consistently.
Principles for the Verbal Plane
(a) Context: based upon Ranganathans Canon of Context. Although
this canon has no CRG equivalent, it is maintained because it helps
ensure the clarity of the terms used within a classification system.
(a) Currency: based upon Ranganathans Canon of Currency. Although
this canon has no CRG equivalent, it is maintained because it helps
ensure the relevance of the terms used within a classification system.
Principles for the Notational Plane
(a) Synonym: based upon Ranganathans Canon of Synonym. Although
this canon has no CRG equivalent, it is maintained because it helps
ensure the mutual exclusivity of the notation used in the classification
system.
(b) Homonym: based upon RanganathansCanon of Homonym.
Although this canon has no CRG equivalent, it is maintained because it is
a natural corollary to the Principle of Synonym.
(c) Hospitality: based upon the CRG Principle of Hospitality. Although
there is no Ranganathan equivalent to this CRG principle, it is maintained
because it helps ensure the ability of the notational system to keep
abreast of changes and additions made to the classification system.
(d) Filing Order: based upon the CRG Principle of Filing Order. Although
there is no Ranganathan equivalent to this CRG principle, it is maintained
because it ensures that the notation reflects the schedule order used in
the classification system.
The following components from the theories of Ranganathan and the CRG
were excluded from the simplified model:
(a) Canon of Exhaustiveness: as discussed previously, this canon is
rather difficult to determine and maintain.
(b) Canon of Exclusiveness: incorporated into the models Principle of
Mutual Exclusivity.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
20/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 20/29
(c) Canon of Helpful Sequence: incorporated into the models
Principle of Relevant Succession.
(d) Canon of Consistent Sequence: it could be somewhat difficult to
ascertain to what degree different classes have a parallel st ructure. It
might be enough to say that facets should be arranged in a relevant
sequence.
(d) Canon of Decreasing Extension: implies a genus-species division
of knowledge, which is not intrinsic to facet analysis.
(e) Canon of Modulation: implies a prescribed citation order of facets,
and thus clashes with the simplified model's Principle of Relevant
Succession.
(f) Canons of Subordinate and Coordinate Classes: implied in the
models Principle of Mutual Exclusivity.
(g) Canon of Enumeration: implied in the models Principle of Context.
(h) Canon of Reticence: as discussed previously, could conflict with the
Canon of Currency (Principle of Currency in the simplified model)
(i) Canons of Relativity/Uniformity; Hierarchy/Non-Hierarchy; Co-
Extensiveness; Mixed Base/Pure Base; Faceted/Non-Faceted
Notation; Alphabetical Mnemonics; Systematic Mnemonics; Seminal
Mnemonics: excluded from the simplified model because they deal with
different types of notation rather than with qualities fundamental to all
types of notation.
(j) Postulates: all Ranganathan's postulates were excluded because
they clash with the simplified model's adopted CRG approach to
fundamental categories and citation order.
(k) CRG Principle of Division: implied in the model's Principles of
Homogeneity and Mutual Exclusivity.
(l) CRG Principle of Ordinal or Expressive notation: excluded from
the simplified model because it deals with types of notation rather than
with qualities fundamental to all types of notation.
CONCLUSION
The simplified model suggested for the principles of facet analysis is
derived from an amalgamation of the theories of Ranganathan and the
CRG. It could be argued very reasonably that the simplified model
represents a bias towards the principles of the CRG, particularly in the
area of the choice of fundamental categories and the citation order of
facets. As has been stated previously, the consultation of a number of
classification systems and IR faceted thesauri has revealed that the CRG
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
21/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 21/29
approach in these two areas appears to be very popular among the
designers of these systems and thesauri, perhaps because of the greater
flexibility that this approach allows. Ranganathan does not specify too
clearly how PMEST can be applied to all areas of knowledge, and his
postulates pertaining to the citation order of the various Rounds and Levels
of PMEST can be rather confusing and intimidating. The CRG approach,
on the other hand, allows designers to tailor classification systems and IR
thesauri to suit the needs of both the users of the latter, and the subject
matter covered.
The next step in the construction of the simplified model will be to explain
its principles of facet analysis in a language that is more accessible and
comprehensible, perhaps, than is often the case in their original
Ranganathan and CRG forms. Such a rephrasing of the models principles
is beyond the scope of this work, however.
The purpose of this simplified model is not to criticize or to belittle the
theories of either Ranganathan and the CRG. Rather, an attempt has beenmade to provide LIS students and perhaps LIS practitioners with a
condensed model that gives an overview of the underlying principles of
facet analysis that are common to both these theories, and which reflects
common usage amongst the designers of faceted classification systems
and IR thesauri.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, Jean. 1969. Thesaurofacet. Whetstone, Leicester: English
Electric Co.
American Petroleum Institute. 1994.API thesaurus. New York: American
Petroleum Institute.
Austin, Derek. 1968. Fields, categories and general systems theory:
Report to the Classification Research Group. London: BNB.
Austin, Derek. 1969. Prospects for a new general classification. Journal oflibrarianship1(3): 149-169.
British Standards Institution. 1988. BSI root thesaurus. Milton Keynes:
British Standards Institution.
BSRIA. 1993. Building Services Thesaurus. Bracknell, Berks.: Building
Services Research & Information Agency.
Burton, Paul. Expert systems in libraries. Proceedings of a conference of
the Library Association Information Technology Group and the Library and
Information Research Group, November 1985. ed. Gibb Forbes. London:
Taylor Graham.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
22/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 22/29
Classification Research Group. 1985. The need for a faceted classification
as the basis of all methods of information retrieval. In Theory of subject
analysis, ed. Lois Mai Chan, et al. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Croghan, Antony. 1981. Science fiction and the universe of knowledge.
London: Coburgh Publications.
Daniel, Ruth, and J. Mills. 1975. Classification of library & information
science. London: Library Association.
Foskett, A. C. 1996. The subject approach to information. London: Library
Association Publishing.
Foskett, D. J. 1963. The London education classification. London:
Institute of Education, University of London.
Foskett, D. J. 1970. Classif ication for a general index language: A review
of recent research by theClassification Research Group. London: Library
Association.
Foskett, D. J. 1971. Classification Research Group, 1952-1962. InEncyclopedia of library and information science, vol. 5, ed. Allen Kent
and Harold Lancour. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Foskett, D. J. 1974. Classification and indexing in the social sciences .
London: Butterworths.
Gibb, Forbes, and Peter Fleming. 1991. Knowledge-based indexing: The
view from SIMPR. in Libraries and expert systems. Proceedings of a
conference and workshop held at Charles Sturt University Riverina,
Australia, July 1990, eds. Craig McDonald & John Weckert. London:
Taylor Graham.
Gopinath, M. A. 1986. Relevance of Ranganathan's postulational approach
in the identification of key concepts in the newly formed subjects and its
implications to intellectual organisation of information. in Ranganathan's
philosophy: Assessment, impact and relevance, ed. T. S. Rajagopalan.
New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Grolier, Eric de. 1962. Etude sur les catgories gnrales applicables aux
classif ications et codifications documentaires. Paris: Unesco.
Harris, Kevin. 1986. Dickens House classification. London: Polytechnic of
North London.
Harrold, Ann. 1991. Musaurus. London: Music Press.
Long, Valerie. 1972. Classification for manpower studies. London: London
Graduate School Business Studies.
Mills, John, and Vanda Broughton. 1977. Bliss bibliographic classification.
Second edition. London: Butterworths.
Milstead, Jessica L. 1994.ASIS thesaurus of information science and
librarianship. Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
23/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 23/29
Ohdedar, A. K., and B. Sengupta. 1977. Library classification. Calcutta:
World Press Private Ltd.
Petersen, Toni. 1994.Art & architecture thesaurus. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ranganathan, S. R. 1962. Elements of library classification. Bombay:
Asia Publishing House.
Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to library classification. New
York: Asia Publishing House.
Revie, C. W., & G. Smart. 1991. The construction and use of faceted
classification schema in technical domains. in Classification research for
knowledge representation and organization. Proceedings of the 5th
international study conference on classification research. Toronto,
Canada, June 24-28, 1991.eds. Nancy J. Williamson & Michle Hudon.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Roberts, Norman. 1969. An examination of the personality concept and its
relevance to the colon classification. Journal of librarianship. 1(3): 131-
148.
Shera, Jesse H. 1965. Documentation and the organization of knowledge.
Hamden, Conn: Archon Books.
Spiteri, Louise F. 1996. Design of an instrument to measure the structural
quality of faceted thesauri. Toronto, ON: Faculty of Information Studies,
University of Toronto.
Stiles, William G. 1985. Ranganathan, cognition and expert systems.
Canadian journal of information Science, 10: 16-24.
Travis, Irene L. 1989. Applications of artificial intelligence to bibliographic
classification. in Classification theory in the computer age: Conversations
across the disciplines. Proceedings from the conference. November 18-
19, 1988, Albany, New York. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller College of
Public Affairs & Policy .
Travis, L. 1990. Applications of knowledge-based systems to
classifications in libraries. in Expert systems in libraries, eds. Rao Aluri &
Donald E. Riggs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vernon, K. G. B. 1979. London classification of business studies. London:
Aslib.
Vickery, B. C. 1960. Faceted classification: A guide to the construction
and use of special schemes. London: Aslib.
Vickery, B. C. 1966. Faceted classification schemes. New Brunswick, NJ:
Graduate School Library Science, Rutgers, the State University.
Vickery, B. C. 1975. Classification and indexing in science. London:
Butterworths.
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
24/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 24/29
Wilmot, Carol E. 1981. Classification/thesaurus for sport and physical
recreation. London: Sports Council.
Wilson, T. D. 1972. The Work of the British Classification Research
Group. In Subject retrieval in the seventies, eds. Hans Wellisch and
Thomas D. Wilson. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
APPENDIX ONE: RANGANATHANS THEORY OFFACET ANALYSIS
CANONS FOR THE IDEA PLANE
1. Canons for Characteristics
a) Canon of Differentiation
b) Canon of Relevance
c) Canon of Ascertainability
d) Canon of Permanence
2. Canons for Succession of Characteristics
a) Canon of Concomitance
b) Canon of Relevant Succession
c) Canon of Consistent Succession
3. Canons for Array
a) Canon of Exhaustiveness
b) Canon of Exclusiveness
c) Canon of Helpful Sequence
4. Canons for Chain
a) Canon of Decreasing Extension
b) Canon of Modulation
d) Canon of Consistent Sequence
5. Canons for Filiatory Sequence
a) Canon of Subordinate Classes
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
25/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 25/29
b) Canon of Coordinate Classes
CANONS FOR THE VERBAL PLANE
1. Canon of Context
2. Canon of Enumeration
3. Canon of Currency
4. Canon of Reticence
CANONS FOR THE NOTATIONAL PLANE
1. Canon of Synonym
2. Canon of Homonym
3. Canon of Relativity
4. Canon of Uniformity
5. Canon of Hierarchy
6. Canon of Non-Hierarchy
7. Canon of Mixed Base
8. Canon of Pure Base
9. Canon of Faceted Notation
10. Canon of Non-Faceted Notation
11. Canon of Co-Extensiveness
12. Canon of Under-Extensiveness
CANONS OF MNEMONICS
1. Canon of Alphabetical Mnemonics
2. Canon of Systematic Mnemonics
3. Canon of Seminal Mnemonics
PRINCIPLES FOR HELPFUL SEQUENCE
1. Principle of Later-in-Time
2. Principle of Later-in-Evolution
3. Principles of Spatial Contiguity
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
26/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 26/29
a) Principle of Bottom Upwards
b) Principle of Top Downwards
c) Principle of Left to Right
d) Principle of Clockwise Direction
e) Principle of Counter-Clockwise Direction
f) Principle of Periphery to Centre
g) Principle of Centre to Periphery
4. Principles of Quantitative Measure
a) Principle of Increasing Quantity
b) Principle of Decreasing Quantity
5. Principle of Increasing Complexity
6. Principle of Canonical Sequence
7. Principle of Literary Warrant
8. Principle of Alphabetical Sequence
POSTULATES
1. Postulate of Five Fundamental Categories
2. Postulate of Basic Facet
3. Postulate of Isolate Facet
4. Postulates for Rounds of Manifestation
a) Postulate of Rounds for Energy
b) Postulate of Rounds for Personality and Matter
c) Postulate of Rounds for Space and Time
5. Postulates for Levels of Manifestation
a) Postulate of Level
6. Postulates for Facets
a) Postulate of First Facet
b) Postulate of Concreteness
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
27/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 27/29
c) Postulate of Facet Sequence Within a Round
d) Postulate of Facet Sequence Within the Last Round
e) Postulate of a Level Cluster
PRINCIPLES FOR FACET SEQUENCE
1. Wall-Picture Sequence
2. Whole-Organ Principle
3. Cow-Calf Principle
4. Actand-Action-Actor-Tool Principle
APPENDIX TWO: CLASSIFICATION RESEARCHGROUP THEORY OF FACET ANALYSIS
Principles for the Choice of Facets
1. Principle of Division
2. Principle of Homogeneity
3. Principle of Mutual Exclusivity
4. Principle of Relevance
5. Principle of Ascertainability
6. Principle of Permanence
7. Principle of Fundamental Categories
Principles for Citation Order
1. Schedule Order
2. Order in Array
Principles for Notation
1. Filing Order
2. Hospitality
3. Ordinal/Expressive Notation
APPENDIX THREE: SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
28/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
http://iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php 28/29
FACET ANALYSIS
PRINCIPLES FOR THE IDEA PLANE
1. Principles for Choice of Facets
a) Principle of Differentiation
b) Principle of Relevance
c) Principle of Ascertainability
d) Principle of Permanence
e) Principle of Homogeneity
f) Principle of Mutual Exclusivity
g) Principle of Fundamental Categories
1. Principles for Citation Order of Facets and Foci
a) Principle of Relevant Succession
I. Chronological Order
II. Alphabetical Order
III. Spatial/Geometric Order
IV. Simple to Complex Order
V. Complex to Simple Order
VI. Canonical Order
VII. Increasing Quantity
VIII.Decreasing Quantity
1. Principle of Consistent Succession
PRINCIPLES FOR THE VERBAL PLANE
1. Principle of Context
2. Principle of Currency
PRINCIPLES FOR THE NOTATIONAL PLANE
1. Principle of Synonym
2. Principle of Homonym
8/11/2019 SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
29/29
31/7/2014 A Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute
Privacy Policy | About this Site | 2007-2013
3. Principle of Hospitality
4. Principle of Filing Order
This article originally appeared in the Canadian
Journal of Information and Library Sciencev23, 1-30 (April-July 1998). Reprinted by
permission of University of Toronto Press Incorporated. We are grateful for their permission
to republished this w ork and thank Melanie North for her ass istance.
This page was last modified on February 15, 2003 05:20 PM.
http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=cjils/cjils.htmlhttp://iainstitute.org/en/about/about_this_site.phphttp://iainstitute.org/en/about/privacy_policy.php