Article Summary for Lecture # 11 - Barite

The Notion of "Category":

Its Implications in Subject Analysis and in the Construction and Evaluation of 

Indexing Languages

       Mario Guido Barite, a professor and researcher at the School of Librarianship at the University of the Republic in Uruguay, attempts to tackle the notion of category (a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things) and proposes conceptual and methodological reexamination from a functional standpoint. Barite claims that "most classifiers or indexers assume the role of classificationist since the present state of indexing languages entails minor and major surgery be performed to adapt these languages to users' requirements." 

   

      Categories necessarily are the foundation of any organizational system of knowledge, however  category, characteristic, or class are sometimes used indistinctly. It is not possible to characterize categories in the Theory of Classification, as categories are extremely general abstract expressions. Categories are used as tools to discover certain regularities of the material world, but Barite suggest properties as a possible category to analyze the material world since categories are, in their basic nature, extremely simple notions. Within the Theory of Classification, categories are only relevant as instruments of analysis and organization of object, phenomena and knowledge, and classificationists are used in three precise activities Barite mentions:

• design, planning, and structuring of indexing languages or systems of knowledge
• modification or specification of classification tables
• the evaluation and analysis of indexing languages and systems of concepts through a set of parameters capable of establishing the grade of reciprocal tension among related concepts and their relevance and validity. 

       Since it is not possible to isolate the notion of category from those of object and analyst there are several object attributes that Barite suggests condition its study:

• Any object  is naturally dynamic and mutable - that being the case, in order for the analysis to be completed, the object must be captured at a certain time and abstraction from its reality is required at a given moment.
• The object may be real or ideal - it may have existed as may be corroborated by its existence registers or maybe it only has an immaterial existence, not physical, due to its nature. These particular characteristics seem to obstruct the analysis since analysts are condemned to act by approximation. However, once conventions have been clearly established by conses, abstract objects are easily systematized after agreement has been reached regarding what a theorem is or certain chronological and factual conventions of the French Revolution - the difficulty of giving intellectual access to the concept diminishes.
• Some objects have delimitation problems - attempts to produce a definition usually create discrepancies and shades of meaning among experts, so much that they may cause a certain aspect of the object to be placed within one category or the other. But we also have the difficulties posed by the concepts that do not attain conventional agreement. To exemplify, think of the difficulty of approving by consensus the basic statements towards the definition of the concept  labor flexibilization from the viewpoint of a sociologist with a Marxist orientation and another one of ultra-liberal ideas.
• A large part of the objects belong to, or occur in a phase of the time-space continuum, or rather flow along a section of that continuum. - Due to their mutating and dynamic nature, some objects achieve various configurations and undergo a double influence: that of the processes occurring as a result of the action of internal agents, and that of the processes caused by external agents. This double influence is the determinant of each specific configuration, since any object is in a given time and in a given spatial situation, the synthesis of the impacts brought about by such agents. 

      He then goes on to decompose the notion of category to extract its most typical characteristics:

• Every category is a sectorial one. 
• Every category implies a specific level of analysis. 
• Categories are levels of analysis external to the object.
• Categories are mutually excluding.
• Every category is highly generalizable. 
• Every category may admit, with reference to an object, variable levels of subdivision.
• Agreement has not been reached regarding a limited collection of categories.

Barite concludes that the proposition of greater attention on the definition of category, because it involves essential theoretical practical aspects for the reasonable command of the theory of concepts by specialists. I agree that it is important to dissect, correct, and fully understand terminology. If we can't fully understand the terminology within a an organization system, the system will not be efficient enough to get quality information into the hands of patrons with ease. The article is a bit philosophic, which made it somewhat of a struggle to read, but the heart of the article and Barite's ideas are spot on. I'd recommend this for organizers everywhere, as it really gets you to think about the elements of a system and the terminology used.

________________________________________________________________________

 For more information see the full article (citation below!)

 Barite, M. (2000). The notion of "category:" Its implications in subject analysis and in the  construction and evaluation of indexing languages. Knowledge Organization 27:4-10.