Page 152 - DLIS002_KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION CLASSIFICATION AND CATALOGUING THEORY

Unit 7: Library Classification Canons and Principles

Notes
Objections to LCC from the Perspective of Classification Theory
In his Prolegomena to Library Classification, S.R. Ranganathan (1967) proposed
fundamental principles (canons) for building a library classification. Ranganathan tested
his principles on UDC, proving that some of the points put forward against UDC by
Sayers were correct. Based on the same principles, one can find many more objections to
the LCC. Based on Ranganathan’s principles, objections to LCC can be systematised
according to the following canons:
The canon of differentiation expresses that, in all classification systems, each division of
the main categories must be made according to different characteristics which are pursuant
to systematisation, that is, to subdivision. This does not happen in the LCC.
The canon of relevance expresses that the characteristics chosen to systematise in a given
subject area must be relevant for that area. Created to serve subject arrangement in a
single library, LCC criteria for subject arrangement are not objective and may not be
likely to be relevant for subject as such.
The canon of ascertainability does not govern the LCC due to the fact that the tables are
not systematised using ascertainable criteria, rather they are enumerations instead. The
canon of permanence states that a characteristic used as a classification criterion must be
maintained and cannot be changed. In the LCC this is not the case, as each main class is
structured based on different principles decided upon by subject specialists for their specific
areas irrespective of systematic structure chosen for other disciplines.
The canon of concomitance refers to the fact that concomitant, i.e. concurrent characteristics
should be avoided. In the LCC, concomitance occurs frequently as it is governed by
criteria of functionality and dynamism compared to theoretical criteria.
The canon of relevant sequence refers to the fact that a succession of characteristics must be
used in a relevant manner, which is why Ranganathan proposed his specific faceted formula
for each main class. For example, if we classify literature, we would be interested first in
the linguistic scope, then the form and finally the date. This relevant sequence is non-
existent in most LCC tables as, continuing with the example of literature, it is not
systematised following a single, common, unalterable criterion, but it responds to a list of
authors without making use of any auxiliary or systematising characteristic.
The canon of consistent succession indicates that, in each scientific area, a classification
system should present an order of common characteristics. For instance, in the UDC, in
most cases, the filing order of facets puts, geographical first, followed by chronological
period, followed by more specific subject facets: tools, materials, processes.
The canon of exhaustiveness refers to the fact that the classes must totally exhaust the
universe from which they stem. In the LCC, this does not occur as this system is a reflection
of the collections existing in the Library of Congress, meaning that knowledge areas not
represented in its collections are not represented in the tables of the LCC.
The canon of exclusiveness is not accurately featured in LCC tables, as these have been
designed by different subject specialists with no intention to relate different subject areas.
Thus, concepts are repeated and enumerated in various subject areas.
Without going into further and more detailed analysis based on Ranganathan’s
principles - it is clear that the LCC structure does not comply with many fundamental
principles necessary for knowledge organization and presentations schemes. The lack of
logic in LCC is so notorious that it hardly requires further arguments. It is important to
take on board that the LCC was not created as a universal knowledge organization system
Contd....

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 147