Our Classification community is concerned with exploring the relative value of and relationships among the various approaches to the classification of resources – ‘classic’ classification (DDC, UDC, BC, LC) vs. custom taxonomies, vs. tagging – and in determining the different contexts within which each might be more applicable than the others.
In the case of faceted (or multivariate) classification, tagging can be treated as another facet.
So, for the purposes of this KOnnect Community, tagging and faceted classification will be treated under the same heading (for now). If you agree, tell us why. If you disagree, then do let us know, and say why!
KOnnect 
I am kind of a lurker, as I am from ISKO Italy not ISKO UK 🙂 But this time I leave a comment as I find the topic relevant.
Though being an animal of the old library classification species, I agree that classification and tagging share something, and can thus be discussed together. In my KOnnect speech of November 5 I will speak about a kind of classification, called free classification, that has much in common with tagging.
As a classification, of course, free classification has more 😉 than tagging: (1) meaningful citation order of “tags”, (2) notation, producing meaningful browsable sorting.
I will also deal with a monster half-way between free and classical classification, called freely faceted classification, which can be of interest especially for those indexing and retrieving more detailed documents, like scientific papers or technical documents.
It seems indeed that from all this we can find some clues about when faceted classification is better, and when free classification/tagging is.
I am interested in the way Wikipedia handles categories. I have tried to find discussion about this approach with no success.
As opposed to making one entry a parent of another, as we might do in a taxonomy. In Wikipedia categories (groupings of concepts) are treated as a completely different type of entry. This means we can have groups like Dog-related_professions_and_professionals without falling into the trap of treating them like concepts (entries) in their own right.
The two activities of defining a concept and grouping associated concepts are separated. The result of this is Wikipedia entries remain topics of interest that are discrete and clearly defined.
I am not sure how to frame this dicussion in the correct acedemic context – though I am sure others can 😉 What are the pros and cons of this method? Is it quite a common practice?
I am interested in the way Wikipedia handles categories. I have tried to find discussion about this approach with no success. I thougt someone might be able shed some more ight on this method.
As opposed to making one entry a parent of another, as we might do in a taxonomy. In Wikipedia categories (groupings of concepts) are treated as a completely different type of entry. This means we can have groups like Dog-related_professions_and_professionals without falling into the trap of treating them like concepts (entries) in their own right.
The two activities of defining a concept and grouping associated concepts are separated. The result of this is Wikipedia entries remain topics of interest that are discrete and clearly defined.
I thought some one might be able to put this into Information Science context. Does it have a name? Is it common practice? What are the disadvantages?
[…] approach to categorization I was intrigued by Silver’s posting asking for information on Wikipedia’s approach to categorization. Since I was busy at the […]
We need to remember the property of the classification scheme is its notation? The associations built among tags are different from the structure of the notation of the scheme. Look at ulrls, then the shelfmarks of the participant organisations, then the strings associated. The searchbeta.bl.uk gives a knew case to examine.
John,
I am not sure which comment you are responding to. Most likely, it’s Claudio’s methinks. Would you care to expand on your statement: ‘The associations built among tags are different from the structure of the notation of the scheme.’?
I’m interested to hear more of your thesis.