档案分类与知识组织:档案领域的理论可能性

Thiago Henrique Bragato Barros, J. B. E. Moraes
{"title":"档案分类与知识组织:档案领域的理论可能性","authors":"Thiago Henrique Bragato Barros, J. B. E. Moraes","doi":"10.5771/9783956504402-272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main goal of this study is to outline a possible relation between archival classification and knowledge organization theory. In this sense, we seek to contribute to the conceptual classification in Archival Science, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification; not just classification, but even the study of historical and conceptual aspects of the discipline. In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research on how to build classification schemes and indexing systems that can help contribute to and expand archival classification theory. In order to comprehend this vast field of theories and methodologies we construct a parallel comparing the classification concepts in both areas and analyzing these concepts. Contexts: The Archival Classification The Archival Science has been looking to demarcate its actuation space, with studies related to a reconsideration of its methods and techniques. We seek in this article to demonstrate some possible contact points between archival classification and knowledge organization especially in terms of contributions from the second for the theoretical growth of archival classification. Thus this work is also related to conceptual classification, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification. Theoretical discussions are essential for maturation of the discipline in order to fill gaps in historical and epistemological frames. Several authors have written on classification as a concept and its theoretical and practical applications, e.g. Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) e Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000) Tennis (2010, 2011) and Dahlberg (1993, 2006). In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research trying to understand how to build classification schemes and indexing systems. These studies can, in a broad sense, help to contribute and expand archival classification theory. So we try to link the discussion of functional classification promulgated in the current archival theory, with the development of classification schemes and classification as an area of study in knowledge organization (see for example, the articles by Tennis (2010, 2011). So, we seek to compare the notions/concepts of classification not to find a definition or a unique sense for both areas, but to understand the differences and similarities in thinking about a reconsideration of archival classification, but also having in mind the archival classification specificities. In archival field there is a plurality of terms to designate the activity of classification of documents. Currently Archival Science – in terms of both theoretical and practical aspects is undergoing profound transformation. A number of publications have tried to define the boundaries of the field and there is also research on functional classification for the organization of modern records. These have been studied in Australia and Canada as a response to the current understanding of the archival institutions. We can highlight the important contributions of Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) and Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000), Terry Eastwood (2000) responsible for the changes in automated description, assessment and functional analysis of the records. All these changes have implications for understanding the concept of","PeriodicalId":249610,"journal":{"name":"Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization","volume":"356 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Archival Classification and Knowledge Organization: Theoretical Possibilities for the Archival Field\",\"authors\":\"Thiago Henrique Bragato Barros, J. B. E. Moraes\",\"doi\":\"10.5771/9783956504402-272\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The main goal of this study is to outline a possible relation between archival classification and knowledge organization theory. In this sense, we seek to contribute to the conceptual classification in Archival Science, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification; not just classification, but even the study of historical and conceptual aspects of the discipline. In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research on how to build classification schemes and indexing systems that can help contribute to and expand archival classification theory. In order to comprehend this vast field of theories and methodologies we construct a parallel comparing the classification concepts in both areas and analyzing these concepts. Contexts: The Archival Classification The Archival Science has been looking to demarcate its actuation space, with studies related to a reconsideration of its methods and techniques. We seek in this article to demonstrate some possible contact points between archival classification and knowledge organization especially in terms of contributions from the second for the theoretical growth of archival classification. Thus this work is also related to conceptual classification, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification. Theoretical discussions are essential for maturation of the discipline in order to fill gaps in historical and epistemological frames. Several authors have written on classification as a concept and its theoretical and practical applications, e.g. Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) e Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000) Tennis (2010, 2011) and Dahlberg (1993, 2006). In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research trying to understand how to build classification schemes and indexing systems. These studies can, in a broad sense, help to contribute and expand archival classification theory. So we try to link the discussion of functional classification promulgated in the current archival theory, with the development of classification schemes and classification as an area of study in knowledge organization (see for example, the articles by Tennis (2010, 2011). So, we seek to compare the notions/concepts of classification not to find a definition or a unique sense for both areas, but to understand the differences and similarities in thinking about a reconsideration of archival classification, but also having in mind the archival classification specificities. In archival field there is a plurality of terms to designate the activity of classification of documents. Currently Archival Science – in terms of both theoretical and practical aspects is undergoing profound transformation. A number of publications have tried to define the boundaries of the field and there is also research on functional classification for the organization of modern records. These have been studied in Australia and Canada as a response to the current understanding of the archival institutions. We can highlight the important contributions of Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) and Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000), Terry Eastwood (2000) responsible for the changes in automated description, assessment and functional analysis of the records. All these changes have implications for understanding the concept of\",\"PeriodicalId\":249610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization\",\"volume\":\"356 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956504402-272\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956504402-272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究的主要目的是概述档案分类与知识组织理论之间可能的关系。从这个意义上说,我们试图为档案学的概念分类做出贡献,因为档案分类缺乏系统化;不仅仅是分类,甚至是对学科的历史和概念方面的研究。在知识组织的背景下,如何建立有助于档案分类理论发展和扩展的分类方案和标引系统已经引起了相当多的研究。为了理解这一广阔的理论和方法领域,我们构建了一个平行的比较两个领域的分类概念和分析这些概念。档案科学一直在寻求划定其驱动空间,研究与重新考虑其方法和技术有关。在本文中,我们试图证明档案分类与知识组织之间的一些可能的联系点,特别是后者对档案分类理论发展的贡献。因此,由于档案分类缺乏系统化,本工作也与概念分类有关。为了填补历史和认识论框架的空白,理论讨论对于学科的成熟是必不可少的。一些作者已经将分类作为一个概念及其理论和实际应用进行了写作,例如Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006), Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000) Tennis(2010, 2011)和Dahlberg(1993,2006)。在知识组织的背景下,有相当多的研究试图了解如何建立分类方案和索引系统。从广义上讲,这些研究有助于档案分类理论的贡献和拓展。因此,我们试图将当前档案理论中关于功能分类的讨论,与分类方案和分类作为知识组织研究领域的发展联系起来(例如,参见Tennis(2010年,2011年)的文章)。因此,我们试图对分类的概念进行比较,不是为了找到两个领域的定义或独特的意义,而是为了了解重新考虑档案分类的差异和相似之处,同时也考虑到档案分类的特殊性。在档案领域,有许多术语用来表示文件分类的活动。当前,档案学无论在理论方面还是在实践方面都在经历着深刻的变革。许多出版物试图界定该领域的边界,也有关于现代记录组织的功能分类的研究。作为对目前对档案机构的理解的回应,澳大利亚和加拿大对这些机构进行了研究。我们可以强调Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman(1999, 2006)和Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000), Terry Eastwood(2000)的重要贡献,他们对记录的自动化描述,评估和功能分析的变化负责。所有这些变化对理解的概念都有影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Archival Classification and Knowledge Organization: Theoretical Possibilities for the Archival Field
The main goal of this study is to outline a possible relation between archival classification and knowledge organization theory. In this sense, we seek to contribute to the conceptual classification in Archival Science, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification; not just classification, but even the study of historical and conceptual aspects of the discipline. In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research on how to build classification schemes and indexing systems that can help contribute to and expand archival classification theory. In order to comprehend this vast field of theories and methodologies we construct a parallel comparing the classification concepts in both areas and analyzing these concepts. Contexts: The Archival Classification The Archival Science has been looking to demarcate its actuation space, with studies related to a reconsideration of its methods and techniques. We seek in this article to demonstrate some possible contact points between archival classification and knowledge organization especially in terms of contributions from the second for the theoretical growth of archival classification. Thus this work is also related to conceptual classification, since there is a lack of systematization about archival classification. Theoretical discussions are essential for maturation of the discipline in order to fill gaps in historical and epistemological frames. Several authors have written on classification as a concept and its theoretical and practical applications, e.g. Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) e Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000) Tennis (2010, 2011) and Dahlberg (1993, 2006). In the context of knowledge organization there is a considerable amount of research trying to understand how to build classification schemes and indexing systems. These studies can, in a broad sense, help to contribute and expand archival classification theory. So we try to link the discussion of functional classification promulgated in the current archival theory, with the development of classification schemes and classification as an area of study in knowledge organization (see for example, the articles by Tennis (2010, 2011). So, we seek to compare the notions/concepts of classification not to find a definition or a unique sense for both areas, but to understand the differences and similarities in thinking about a reconsideration of archival classification, but also having in mind the archival classification specificities. In archival field there is a plurality of terms to designate the activity of classification of documents. Currently Archival Science – in terms of both theoretical and practical aspects is undergoing profound transformation. A number of publications have tried to define the boundaries of the field and there is also research on functional classification for the organization of modern records. These have been studied in Australia and Canada as a response to the current understanding of the archival institutions. We can highlight the important contributions of Laura Millar (2002), Terry Cook (2004, 2005), Brien Brothman (1999, 2006) and Chris Hurley (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000), Terry Eastwood (2000) responsible for the changes in automated description, assessment and functional analysis of the records. All these changes have implications for understanding the concept of
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信