Page 20 - DLIS002_KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION CLASSIFICATION AND CATALOGUING THEORY

Unit 1: Concept of Library Classification

of the limits to “documentation”? The work of European pioneers, such as Paul Otlet and Suzanne Notes
Briet, has received renewed attention in recent years and has been related to discussion of
physical forms of “information” e.g., “information-as-thing”. These issues are important because
mechanical information systems can only operate on physical representations of “information”.
This background is relevant to the clarification of the nature and scope of information systems.
Briet’s rules for determining when an object has become a document are not made clear.
We infer, however, from her discussion that:
1. There is materiality: Physical objects and physical signs only;
2. There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence;

3. The objects have to be processed: They have to be made into documents;
4. There is a phenomenological position: The object is perceived to be a document.

1.5.1 From Document to “Documentation”

In the late 19th century, there was an increasing concern with the rapid increase in the number
of publications, especially of scientific and technical literature. Continued effectiveness in the
creation, dissemination, and utilization of recorded knowledge was seen as a needing new
technique for managing the growing literature.
The “managing” that was needed had several aspects. Efficient and reliable techniques were
needed for collecting, preserving, organizing (arranging), representing (describing), selecting
(retrieving), reproducing (copying), and disseminating documents. The traditional term for this
activity was “bibliography”. However, “bibliography” was not entirely satisfactory for two
reasons:
(i) It was felt that something more than traditional “bibliography” was needed, e.g.,
techniques for reproducing documents; and
(ii) “Bibliography” also had other well-established meanings, especially historical (or
analytical) bibliography which is concerned with traditional techniques of book-production.
Early in the 20th century, the word “documentation” was increasingly adopted in Europe instead
of “bibliography” to denote the set of techniques needed to manage this explosion of documents.
Woledge (1983) provides a detailed account of the evolving usage of “documentation” and
related words in English, French, and German. From about 1920, “documentation” was
increasingly accepted as a general term to encompass bibliography, scholarly information
services, records management, and archival work.

There are numerous writings on the definition, scope, and nature of “documentation”, much of
it concerned with the relationships between documentation, bibliography, and librarianship.
Unfortunately, many of this literature like much of the later discussion of information science
and librarianship is undermined by the authors’ attempts to create or amplify distinctions
where the differences are not fundamental but, rather, a matter of emphasis.
Loosjes explained documentation in historical terms: “Systematic access to written texts became
more difficult after the invention of printing resulted in the proliferation of texts; scholars were
increasingly obliged to delegate tasks to specialists; assembling and maintaining collections
was the field of librarianship; bibliography was concerned with the descriptions of documents;
the delegated task of creating access for scholars to the topical contents of documents, especially
of parts within printed documents and without limitation to particular collections, was
documentation.”

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 15