5 Work in the idea plane: canons of characteristics

Dr M P Satija

Structure:

1. Grammar of Classification design

1.1 Planes of work

1.2 Characteristics

1.2.1 Definition of Characteristics

1.2.2 Parameter

1.2.3 Attributes

2. Canons given by Ranganathan for these twin tasks are:

2.1 Canon of Differentiation

2.2 Canon of Relevance

2.2.1 Relevance to the Purpose

2.3 Canons of Ascertain-ability and Permanence

2.4 Canon of Permanence:

3. Canons of Succession of Characteristics

3.1 The Canon of Concomitance

3.1.1 Broader to narrower succession of characteristics:

3.2 Canon of Relevant Succession

3.2.1 Apply characteristics one by one

3.2.2 Order of application

3.2.3 Dividing Literature

3.2.4 No order is universal

3.2.4.1 Facet sequence

3 The Canon of Consistent Succession

3.1 Comments

4. Summary

5. Glossary

6. References and further Readings

7. Test Questions

1. Grammar of Classification design

S.R. Ranganathan veritably described his teacher W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960) as the first grammarian of libraryclassification, whereas Ranganathan himself is universally acknowledged as the foremost grammarian of this field. His logically trained mind turned the work of classification from an art into an objective science. With his dynamic theory he objectified and mechanized the process of designing and evaluating library classifications systems.

1.1 Planes of work

One of his important contributions is to divide the whole work of classification into three planes, namely, the Idea Plane, Verbal Plane, and the Notational Plane. He formulated clear canons, principles and postulates for work in the each plane. All these laws are subject to the overarching normative Five Laws of Library Since formulated by him and published in 1931. The work in the idea plane, though invisible to a classifier, is the most important one. It is the planning stage of the total work of classification which lays down the foundation and sets the map of the classification system. In popular parlance, it is the brain work of the whole process. Here a classification-maker is concerned with dividing the entities into smaller and smaller groups until every member gets uniquely individualized till no further division is possible or required.

Further,these are systematically regrouped into categories, traits and isolates. The work of Idea Plane does not stop until each entity is properly ranked by arranging them in arrays and chains.

1.2 Characteristics:

Classification at best is a paradoxical process. We divide to regroup, analyze to synthesize, separate the constituents to reunite. The work of dividing entities is done into categories and facets with the help of “characteristics”; and ranking is done in arraysand chains with the help of principles andpostulates. The whole process falls underthe purview of the Idea Plane and is carried out with the help of four sets of Canons:

Canons of Characteristics(Four)
Canons of Succession of Characteristics(Three)
Canons ofArray (Four)
Canons of Chain(Three)

The canons of characteristics are concerned with the inherent qualities of the characteristics to be used as the basis of division. A characteristic is a hammer to break a mass of knowledge into smaller pieces. In other words it is the criterion or basis of division.

1.2.1 Definition of Characteristics

Ranganathan defines a “characteristic”as “An attribute,quality, basis with which a group may be divided into groups at least two”. Further he uses the term “Division characteristics”.

1.2.2 Parameter

The entire universe can be divided into two groups of living and non-living.

Here life is the characteristic. However, Ranganathan has interjected a new term “parameter’: “In the classification of a Universe of Isolate Ideas, each of the successive characteristics used in arrivingat an isolate idea are, therefore, sometimes referred to as the ‘parameter’ of its classification”‘. The terms “Characteristic” and “Parameter” mean the same thing.

1.2.3 Attributes

An entity whether physical or conceptual may have a number of attributes, both inherent (permanent) and given or assumed. The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the more characteristics it will have. Therefore, the selection of characteristics to form the basis of a classification is a very judicious process. The success of classification and its intended purpose will totally depend:

Firstly,upon their skillful selection of characteristics, and,
Secondly,on the order or sequence in which the various characteristics are used.2.Canons given by Ranganathan for these twin tasks are:1 Canons of Characteristics

1.1 Canon of Differentiation
1.2 Canon of Relevance
1.3 Canon of Ascertainability
1.4 Canon of Permanence
2 Canons of Succession of Characteristics
2.1 Canon of Concomitance
2.2 Canon of Relevant Succession
2.3 Canon of Consistent Succession.

2.1 Canon ofDifferentiation:

It implies that acharacteristic common to the whole group should not be usedasthe basis of its further division. A common characteristic, that is shared by the entire group,will not be able to produce any division in the group of entities. For example, being a student of library science cannot be a characteristic to divide a library science class. Similarly, we cannot divide crows on the basis of their colour as they are all black. But shades of variation in the universal characteristic can be used on the basis of differentiation. For example, though possession of twoeyes cannot be a characteristic of dividing a group of normal human beings, but the shape and colour of eyes can be a good basis for grouping. Hence we should select that characteristics which divides the group into at least two groups. A class of library science students can be divided by sender into males and females, or by their religion, etc.

2.2 Canon of Relevance

It is more important and more difficult. A chosencharacteristics may satisfy the canon of differentiation, but may not be very useful. A differentiating characteristic is not right or wrong; it is “more helpful” or “less helpful” depending upon the purpose of classification. For example, a group of persons canbe divided on the basis of their age, height, gender, skin colour, mother tongue, religion, caste, race, nationality,educational qualification, and many other numerous characteristics. But for the purpose of a desired grouping all of them may not be relevant. For example, height, weight, gender, race and physical strength may be relevant characteristics for selecting a class for physical training, but for forming a class for teaching mathematics, these are irrelevant. For this only relevant characteristics are educational qualifications, or language known.

2.2.1 Relevance to the Purpose:

Simply speaking, the selection of characteristics should be correlated only to the purpose of classification. But this cannot be done a priori. There is no mechanical formula to determine the relevance of a characteristic. Ranganathan admits that it is a real problem to select the relevant characteristics amongst a large number of differentiating characteristics. It requires genius, flair and experience to “reject the less helpful characteristics”. Relevance of a characteristic entirely depends upon the purpose of classification. Therefore, the concept of “Relevant Characteristic” itself is related with the purpose of the classification to serve the needs of library users.Application of different characteristics means a different classification. The real problem remains not tofind the relevant characteristics but to find the more relevant ones to design more helpful classification. More than finding the relevant characteristics, the real difficulty lies in foreseeing the helpfulness of classification that we wish to produce for the purpose. The problem is not of means but of ends.

2.3 Canons of Ascertain-ability and Permanence

Both these canons address themselves to the inherent qualities of the characteristics to be applied. The Canon of Ascertain-ability asserts that the characteristic itself should be tangible andobjective. It should be perceptible to any of the five senses. The characteristic should not be illusory, mythical or controvertible. It should be concrete, at best. For example, one’s previous birth may be a differentiating, or even a relevant, characteristic to divide human beings, but certainly it is not ascertainable conclusively.Hence, it should not be used as the characteristic of division.

Characteristics should not be subjective.

Secondly, but less rigorously, a group of teachers should not be divided on the basis of being brilliant or dull, nor literary authors could be classed as major or minor. Not because these qualities do not exist objectively. It is rather mostly due to the fact that these characteristics are very much subjective. These depend upon the perceptions and opinions of the observer. A teacher who is dull for one group of students may be a source of inspiration for some other, and vice versa. Such a characteristic also violates the Canon of Reticence of Terminology in the verbal plane. Hence such controversial and subjective characteristics lead only to confusion and controversy, not to any acceptable classification. Such anattribute is technicallynot fit to be a characteristics.

2.5 Canon of Permanence:

It states that the characteristic though relevant and differentiating should itself not be in a flux. It should be intrinsically permanent and of stable nature. For example “fame” should not be used as a criterion for classifying literary authors. Fame is not anything permanent. History of any literature clearly shows that fame or obscurity is transitory and always changing shape like a cloud. (Shakespeare and Milton were not reputed authors in their lifetimes). On the other hand, many men famous when alive are forgotten the moment they die. Persons may not be divided on the basis of the colour of clothes they are wearing. It is changeable. They may be divided on the basis of their skin colour or height, which are permanent. Natural characteristics are more reliable.

Ranganathan satirically cites the example that Indian politicians, who more often than not change party affiliations to grab power, cannot be divided permanently on the basis of their politicalideology they subscribe to. If such a fluctuating characteristic is used as the basis, the members of the various groups will become inter-migratory“aya- ram-gaya-rams”.And as a result, we will get only a chaotic classification — a classification in a flux: groups which are intermixing, not the segregated ones.

However, “permanently fluctuating” nature of an entity can itself become a characteristic. If it is their permanent feature, it itself is a good basis of classification. “Migratory birds” can become a distinct group of birds on the basis of their changing habitat. It is not the changing characteristic but the “changing nature of entities” which can be used as the basis of division. Individual chameleons cannot be classified on the basis of their colour; but the chameleons as a group can be identified on the basis of their ever changing skin colour.

2. Canons of Succession of Characteristics

To arrive at the desired grouping, or for individualization of entities, we have to apply a number of characteristics one after the other. The next set of canons is concerned with the sequence in which the various characteristics (qualifying the canons of characteristics) are to be applied. These are:

(1) Canon of Concomitance

(2) Canon of Relevant Succession

(3) Cannon of Consistent Succession.

3.1 The Canon of Concomitance

It states that the two characteristics should not be concomitant i.e. the two characteristics applied successively should not result in the same grouping each time. Such a situation may occur if the two characteristics are synonymous. For example, a teacher may at first divide a class in 2014 on the basis of the students being less or above 20 years of age. It will result into two groups. Ifthe nextcharacteristic is chosen as the year of birth being after or before 1994, it will not produce any further grouping as both the characteristics mean the same thing. A group divided on the basis of male/female cannot be further divided on the basis of being men/women. Tautology should be avoided.

3.1.1 Broader to narrower succession:

The successivecharacteristics should beapplied from boarder to narrower. A group of females can be further divided into women, girls and children.A stalemate in further division can occur if the two characteristics are not applied in the order of their decreasing extension or increasing specificity i.e. in the order of general to specific. For example, a group of scientists may be divided on the basis of their being biologists and non-biologists. But to apply the characteristic of being scientist to the biologists will result in no classification, as all biologists are scientists first. Indians cannot be further divided on the basis of being Asians. It will also violate the canon of differentiation. Though Ranganathan has not statedthis explicitly, but this principle is implied in his entire theory of classification. It is a principle of logic firston which the classification at best is based. Many other classificationists such as H.E. Bliss (1870-1955) and Sayers have stated this canon explicitly. Ranganathan implies it as he thinks it to be too obvious to be mentioned.

3.2 Canon of Relevant Succession

To divide a group minutely or rank every member uniquely we have to apply a number of characteristics. These may be all differentiating, permanent, ascertainable and respect the canon of concomitance, yet it may be a formidable problem to decide the order in which the various characteristics are to be applied one after the other.

3.2.1 Apply characteristics one by one:

One important caution is not to apply two or more characteristics simultaneously, otherwise it will result in cross classification.For example, in the following array four characteristics of clan, language spoken, caste, and profession have been applied simultaneously:

Rajputs

Punjabis Brahmins Armymen

Therefore above group is motely, not coherent.In fact isno group in the classification sense. It is not an array as it has no common genus. One could bea Punajbi, Brahimin/Rajput and Army man at the same time.

3.2.2 Order of applications:

As the name implies the Canon of Relevant Succession of Characteristics depends upon the purpose of classification. There is nothing right or wrong in the order of succession of characteristics (subject to the observing the canons of concomitance and increasing specificity). At best, two different sets in succession maybe termed as helpful or unhelpful; more helpful or less helpful to the majority of the library users. “There are of course”, to quote Arthur Maltby, “several useful arrangements in some fields, but the object is to offer the best of these”.

3.2.3 Dividing Literature:

For example, division of the class literature (useful to the majority of the readers) as prescribed in the DDC and the CC is successively by language, form period and title of the work. This is relevant as the majority ofreaders, being monolingual, are interested in the literature of only one language. Further, within a given library the majority is interested in one form of the literature, viz, either in drama, or novel, or poetry. Therefore, in such cases the relevant succession of characteristics is Language, Form, Author and Work. The order of these characteristics though popular is not an absolute one. A special classification having a different set of users may change this order of succession of these characteristics. For example, if a library is interested in the history of world poetry irrespective of the language, then the relevant succession of the above four characteristics will be

(Literature): (Form: Poetry): (Period): (Language)

As another example, if a library specializes in Nineteenth Century, World literature, it may prefer the following order of characteristics:

(Literature): (Period): (Language): (Form)

Facet sequence in UDC is flexible, especially in case of auxiliaries, which can be altered to suit local requirements.

3.2.4 No order is universal:

No sequence is perfect or serves all needs. A classificationist is like the proverbial father having two daughters, one married to a potter and another to a farmer.

Farmer’s wife is urging her father to pray for rain to have bumper crops, while potter’s wife asks his father to pray for sunshine for her pots to dry soon. One obvious problem with this facet sequence is that an author, like Rabindranath Tagore, who writes in different forms then the works of such an author will scatter by form. In the DDC and the CC the plays, fiction and poetry of Tagore are filed separately. The UDC on the other hand brings together works of a single author at one place.

3.2.4.1 Facet Sequence:

But this succession of characteristics is subject to the logical principle of facet sequence, viz, wall-picture principle, the cow-calf principle, and the rest of them. For example, in the case of literature to separate the work facet from author facet by an intervening facet will be sheer absurdity. To some extent, the problem of the relevant succession is the problem of the relevant characteristic. The various chosen characteristics are to be applied in the decreasing order of their relevance or usefulness. The PMEST formula for sequence of categories is in the decreasing order of their concreteness.

3.3 The Canon of Consistent Succession:

This canon is to ascertain the uniformity and consistency of classification. It purports to be a bulwark against the changing tides of fashion, to remain firmly unmoved by the whims and caprices of the person who classifies. In simple words, this canon means that the order of succession of characteristics once fixed should always remain the same.

3.3.1 Comments:

Firstly, a situation may never arise when we may have to apply the same set of characteristics to a different set of entitiesfor dividing the latter. Either the characteristics will be different or the universe of knowledge to be classified will be different. If both are the same, it will mean the same classification. If Ranganathan means that for a given set of objects the sequence of characteristics should never be changed, he negates the value of experience gained with time. It will mean that the sequence of characteristics once chosen should remain the same disregarding whetherthat is found helpful forthe majority of readers or not.

With experience and interaction with users, one may realize a better or more helpful sequence of characteristics. This canon then is contrary to Ranganathan’sown philosophy: he himself has been changing the sequence of characteristics in the main class E Chemistry and Z Law of his Colon Classification. Secondly, it is also contrary to the spirit of the canon or Relevant Succession of Characteristics, as it states that the succession of characteristics should be relevant to the purpose of classification.Ranganathan clarifies that “This canon does not say that all the characteristics chosen as the basis of classification of the subjects going with a Basic Class should be necessarily applied to all such subjects. Many subjects do not take all the characteristics, one subject may take some ofthe characteristics; another may take some others, and so on. The demand of this canon is only that whatever characteristics are applicable to a subject of the Basic Class should be applied in a sequence which has been determined for all the characteristics applicable to one subject or another going with the Basic Class concerned””. In spite of so much clarification, the Canon of Relevant Succession may be violated, as this canon as enunciated in the Prolegomena (EK1)reads: “The succession of characteristics should be consistently adhered to, so long as there is no change in the purpostheclassification”

3. Summary:

Classification is a paradoxical process of dividing to make groups; analysis for synthesis; breaking to reintegrate. For dividing an area/mass of knowledge or some entities, we require a basis of division called characteristics. A characteristic is a sort of hammer to break a group. To break a group into sub-groups, we need a right kind of hammer. So what are the qualities of such a hammer, and how to apply it? The guidance is provided by canons of characteristics and the order in which they are to be applied given by Ranganathan in the idea plane of classification work. Idea plane provides theory based blueprints of the whole work of designing classification carried out in three plans — other being verbal and notational planes. These canons of characteristics lay down that the characteristics chosen should be able to break the group into atleast two sub-groups (Differentiation). The breaking should be into larger to smaller groups. The characteristics chosen should not result in the same grouping again (Concomitance). The characteristics applied should be relevant to the purpose of classification (to serve the needs of majority of the library users). The canon of ascertainability means the characteristic should be tangible, objective and knowable.

Lastly, the characteristic itself should be permanent, not changing or be in a flux like rising or falling of mercury. The chosen characteristic should not be fickle. Persons may be classified by their skin colour but not by the colour of clothes they wear Further, for breaking a mass of knowledge, we have to strike the hammer not once but many times successively to arrive at the right and desired grouping. More than one characteristics are to be applied in succession. We have to decide the order in which these are to be applied (Canons of succession of characteristics). Two characteristics applied should not result in the same grouping (Concomitance). The order in which these are applied should be relevant to the purpose of library users.

History of world can be arranged chronologically irrespective of the country or it can be first divided by nation and then by period. Both the approaches are correct depending upon the need of the users. In fact no classification grouping serves all purpose or satisfies the needs of all the users. To fulfil the needs of other users, librarians have devised supplementary approaches in the form of indexes. Lastly the succession of characteristics chosen once should remain the same as long as the purpose of classification remains the same.

4. GlossaryAbstract entity:

A conceptual or mental entity, e.g. good, honest, love

Ascertainability: Something that can be known or described objectively, or can be demonstrated; objectivity; not subjective.

Attribute: Any quality or aspect of an entity. An entity has numerous attributes which go on increasing when we move from general to specific.

Canons: Laws applicable to a sub-discipline, e.g. canons of cataloguing; canons of books selection.

Characteristic: A basis of division of a group; an attribute that is used to divide a group into at least two subgroups.

Classification: Act of dividing entitiesinto groups whose all members have at least one similarity in common.

Classificationist: Person who designs a classification; system designer.

Classifier: Person who operates a classification system; a driver.

Concomitant: Happening at the same time; providing the same result.

Concreteness: Quality of an entity of being perceived by any of the five senses; something objective.

Entity: Any abstract or concrete object; any phenomenon.

Planes of work: Three sequential/ordered phases of work of designing classification from conception, formulating theory to the final product. These are Idea, Verbal and Notational plans respectively.

Relevance: It means relevance to the purpose set for classification as a final product. A classification relevant for one group of users may be less relevant, or not useful, to another group.

Succession: Order; sequence; coming one after the other.

6. References and further Readings

Bavakutty, M. 1981. Canons of Library Classification. Trivandrum: Kerala Library Association,. pp. 7-13.
Bronowski, J. 1960.The Commonsense of science.Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 54-55.
Buchanan, Brian.1979. Theory of Library Classification. London: Clive Bingley, pp.17- 37,52-53
Kaula, P.N.1980. “Canons in analytico-synthetic classification” International Classification 7(3) 118-125
Langridge, D.W. 1992. Classification: Its Kinds, Elements Systems, and Applications. London: Bowker- Saur, pp.84
Langridge, D.W. 1989.Subject analysis: Principles and procedure. London: Bowker- Saur,. 146p.
Maltby, Arthur.1975. Sayers Manual of Classification for Librarians, 5th ed. London: Andre Deutsch, p.32.
Ranganathan, S.R. 1967.Prolegomena to Library Classification, 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, Sec EAI.
Ranganathan, S.R.1987. Colon Classification, 7th ed. Revised and edited by M.A. Gopinath. Bangalore: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science.
Ranganathan, S.R.1967: A Descriptive Account of the Colon Classification. Bombay: Asia publishing House, Sec. G17
Sachdeva, M.S. 1980.Colon Classification. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Sterling Publish¬ers, pp. 88-93
Srivastava, A.P. 1992. Theory of Knowledge Classification for Librarians, 2nd ed., revised with the assistance of M.P. Satija, et al. New Delhi: The Learning Laboratory, 115p.

Learn More:

Module LIS/KOP – C/5(1): Work in the Idea Plane: Canons of characteristics

1. Do you know

Language is not the only means of human communication, but a dominant one.
Language at its best is an imperfect tool to convey messages, thoughts and feelings.
These imperfections in ordinary languages are a boon for literary persons, poets, but a sort of hindrance for researchers, scientists, legal and business persons.

2. Points to remember

Technical terminology is a panacea for the ills of the ordinary language, though it makes the language dull and prosaic.
In science, academics, law and business we need a sort of controlled vocabulary which is free of homonyms and synonyms.
In information retrieval we need a controlled vocabulary for better relevance ratio of the output.
Lists of subject headings are tools for vocabulary control in information retrieval.
In all, one to one correspondence between concepts and their terms is at best a utopia.