• Book review of: Eric R. Scerri. The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007

      Hjørland, Birger (2008-11)
      Scerriâ s book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. The book review considers the theoretical basis of this classification system as well as implications for the field of Knowledge Organization.
    • Book review of: Marc Ereshefsky. The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

      Hjørland, Birger (2008-11)
      A book review of a book criticizing the famous classification system developed by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707â 1778), which has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. The review considers theoretical issues in classification and the importance of the book for the field of Knowledge Organization.
    • Book review of: Rachel Cooper. Classifying Madness: A Philosophical Examination of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Berlin: Springer, 2005.

      Hjørland, Birger (2008-11)
      This book review considers some theoretical issues in classification theory and the relevance of this book for the community of Knowledge Organization.
    • A Code for Classifiers: Whatever Happened to Merrillâ s Code?

      Coleman, Anita Sundaram; Smiraglia, Richard P. (Ergon-Verlag, 2004)
      This is a preprint of the article published in Knowledge Organization 31 (3): 161-176. The work titled "Code for Classifiers" by William Stetson Merrill is examined. The development of Merrill's Code over a period of 27 years, 1912-1939 is traced by examining bibliographic, attribution, conceptual and contextual differences. The general principles advocated, the differences between variants, and three controversial features of the Code: 1) the distinction between classifying vs. classification, 2) borrowing of the bibliographic principle of authorial intention, and 3) use of Dewey Decimal class numbers for classified sequence of topics, are also discussed. The paper reveals the importance of the Code in its own time, the complexities of its presentation and assessment by its contemporaries, and itâ s status today.
    • Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics

      Hjørland, Birger (1998)
      Outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of composition studies. Maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. Shows how theories of information retrieval must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. Discusses two contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: the picture theory and the theory of language games, and demonstrates the different consequences of such theories for information retrieval. Finally, discusses the implications for information professionals.
    • A Rejoinder to Beghtol (2004). Knowledge Organization, 31(3), 199-201.

      Nicolaisen, Jeppe; Hjørland, Birger (ERGON-Verlag, 2004)
      In our comment (Hjørland & Nicolaisen, 2004) to Beghtol (2003) we were reacting to the fact that Beghtol describes the classifications developed by scholars as â naïveâ while she describes the classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as â professionalâ . We explained that we feared this unfortunate terminology is rooted in misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and scholarly classification on the one hand and LIS classifications on the other. We stated that only a correction of this misjudgment might give us in the field of KO a chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world. Beghtol (2004), in her reply to us, claims that the term â naïveâ as she defines it, is not a pejorative term. But she fails to explain why. This paper examines and responds to the views put forwards in Beghtol (2004).
    • Scientific and Scholarly Classifications are not "Naïve": a Comment to Begthol (2003). Knowledge Organization, 31(1), 55-61.

      Hjørland, Birger; Nicolaisen, Jeppe (2004)
      In her paper Beghtol (2003) outlines how scholarly activities and research leads to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the classifications developed by scholars as â naïveâ while she describes the classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as â professionalâ . We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply anchored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and scholarly classification on the one side and LIS classifications on the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.