SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute

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/


2/29


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


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


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


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


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


8/29



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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


18/29


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


29/29


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

SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute

Documents

Transcript of SPITERI. a Simplified Model for Facet Analysis - Information Architecture Institute