disciplinary, asynthetic, domain-dependent: narcis a ...asis&t 2017 sig/cr workshop –...

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 1

Disciplinary,Asynthetic,Domain-Dependent:NARCISaNationalResearchClassificationinIsolation

RichardP.Smiraglia

VisitingProfessor,DataArchivingandNetworkedServices,RoyalNetherlandsAcademyoftheArtsandSciences,TheHague,TheNetherlandsProfessor,UniversityofWisconsin-Milwaukee

NARCISisthenationalresearchportalofNetherlands’wide-rangingdataandresearcharchivingstructureforthetwenty-firstcentury.TheacronymstandsforNationalAcademicResearchandCollaborationsInformationSystem(NARCIS).AccordingtovariouswebsitesoftheDutchresearchcommunity,NARCISisarepositorythatcombinesopenaccesspublicationsanddatasetsfromDutchscholarswithtextsofpeerreviewedpublicationsandotherresearchdata.NARCISisgovernedbyaknowledgeorganizationsystem—aclassification—bythesamename.Foravarietyofreasonsaddressedinthisconceptpaper—adisciplinarybase,alackofsynthesis,anddomain-dependency—theNARCISclassificationis“siloed”orhighlycompartmentalizedandthereforeinhospitableforinteroperability.Inaddition,theclassificationhasbeencompletelyrevisedatleastonce,leadingtotheproblemsofscheme-versioningifnotalsosubjectontogeny.1.0DomaindependenceTheNARCISClassificationisdomain-dependent,meaningitisentirelyandonlydesignedforthecontentsoftheNARCISdataportal,whichisthecurrentoutputofDutchscholarship.TheNARCISClassificationisdesignedtoprovideaccesstoscientificinformationfromDutchscholarswhoentertheirresearchintoitsrepository.NARCISClassificationsymbolsareassignedtorepresenttheknowledge-basesofcontributingscholars,ratherthantorepresentthecontentofthepublicationsintheNARCISrepository.TheNARCISproject(DANSa)beganin2004asacooperativeprojectofDutchresearchinstitutesresultingintheopeningofitsoriginalportalin2007.Since2011ithasbeenhousedatDANS(DataArchivingandNetworkedServices,ADivisionoftheRoyalNetherlandsAcademyoftheArtsandSciences).Thecurrentclassificationdatesfrom2015,althoughitisnotclearfrompublicdocumentswhoexactlyisresponsibleforitsintellectualmanagement.Theclassificationismadeupoftwoclasses(DANSb)—Dforthesciencesbroadly,andEforinterdisciplinaryareas.Altogetherthereare223classes,divisionsandsubdivisions.Theclassificationisoverwhelminglyforthesciences:ThegeneraloutlineshowsthetwoclassesandthesevendivisionsofclassD,eachwithitsrespectivenumberofdivisionsandsubdivisions:

D10000Scienceandtechnology 89

D20000Lifesciences,medicineandhealthcare 63

D30000Humanities 28

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 2

D40000Lawandpublicadministration 11

D50000Behaviouralandeducationalsciences 4

D60000Socialsciences 9

D70000Economicsandbusinessadministration 1

E10000Interdisciplinarysciences 8

The“sciences”occupy76%.WecancomparethisvisualizationwiththosefromtheDeweyDecimalClassification23(Choi2017,8),Wikipediacategories2008,andtheUniversalDecimalClassification2008(datafromtheKnowledgeSpaceLab):

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 3

InDDC23thesciencesoccupy28.1%(60022.6%,5005.5%),inWikipedia18%,inUDC72%.Althoughcomparisonsobviouslyarenotexact,itisinterestingtoseehowthedisciplinaryfocusofNARCISalignswiththeliterarywarrant-basedUDC,aswellashowdifferentitisproportionatelyfromtheWikipediacategories.AnonmaliesincludethefactthatEconomicsoccupiesitsowndivisionwithbusinessadministrationattheendoftheDclass.Humanitiesoccupiesonedivisionintotal.ThebreakdownoftheHumanitiesisasfollows:

D30100Digitalhumanities 1

D31000Paleography,bibliology,bibliography,libraryscience 1

D32000Philosophy 5

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 4

D33000Theologyandreligiousstudies 1

D34000History 3

D35000Artsandculture 5

D36000Languageandliteraturestudies 6

D37000Archaeology 1

D38000AreaStudies 1

Afurtheranomalyoccurswithinformationscience,whichisnotpresentintheNARCISclassification.“Libraryscience”occursasadivisionofbibliography,whichisamethodologyofhistoryunderhumanities.“Computerscience,”however,occupiesadivisionwith8subdivisionsincludinginformationsystems,artificialintelligence.Thequestionforclassificationresearchbecomesthedegreetowhichtheclassificationisinfluencedpoliticallybyitsdomainratherthanempiricallyrepresentingscholarship.Smiraglia(2014)suggeststhepoliticaldisciplinarityisaresultofsocialepistemologicalforces.Butifthegoaloftherepositoryistoproperlyrepresentscholarshipamoreempiricalbasisforthestructureoftheclassificationwouldbeappropriate.Theabsenceofinformationscienceandthemisnamingandmisplacingoflibrarianshipsuggestspoliticalculturalpervasiveness(Smiraglia2015)asaformofunseenobjectivedisciplinaryviolence(Tennis2013).2.0Asynthetic

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 5

TheNARCISclassificationhasnoevidenceofsynthesis.Divisionsandsubdivisionsmaybeindependentlyrepresentedbutnotcombinedinknowledgerepresentationoreitherpre-orpost-coordinatesearching.TheNARCISclassificationwebsite(DANSb)describeseachindividuallynamed“category”asa“facet.”ButthereisnoevidenceoffacetanalyticaltheoryintheconstructionofimplementationoftheNARCISclassification.3.0InterdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarityispoorlyservedintheNARCISclassification.AseparateclassEissetasideforinterdisciplinarysciences.Itincludes:

E11000Biotechnology

E12000Technologyinmedicineandhealthcare

E13000Developmentstudies

E14000Migration,ethnicrelationsandmulticulturalism

E15000Environmentalstudies

E16000Nanotechnology

E17000Greenhousegasmitigation

E18000Biobasedeconomy

TheisolationoftheseareasoftransdisciplinarityfromtherestoftheknowledgebaseisanotherexampleofhowtheNARCISclassificationsilosbydiscipline—adistinctlyanti-interdisciplinaryapproach.AccordingtoSzostak,GnoliandLópez-Huertas(2016),interdisciplinarityrequirestheabilitytosearchtogetherbyphenomenoninordertoavoidtheobstaclesimposedbydisciplinaryboundaries.NospecificphenomenaareidentifiedintheNARCISclassification,norareanyscopenotesavailabletoassistinchoiceofclassificationforknowledgerepresentation.4.0SchemechangeNARCISClassificationwascompletelyrevisedin2015whenthedatabasemigratedfromanearlierrepositorytoitscurrenthomeatDANS.Accordingtothewebsite(DANSb),theclassificationwaschangedradicallyin2015:

ThepreviousNARCISclassificationcodeconsistedoftwomaincategories.The"A"codegaveanoverviewofareasofinterest,andthe"D"codeclassifiedscientificdisciplines.Inaddition,theclassificationincludeda"C"codeforinterdisciplinaryresearchareas.Thisclassificationconsistedof94"A"codes,eight"C"codes,and182"D"codes.Thenewclassificationisincludes223codes(andterms):214"D"codes(disciplines)and8"E"codes(interdisciplinarysciences).Thechanges[we]re:

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 6

-Removalofthe"A"codes(areasofinterest):All"A"codeshaveexpiredandwherepossible,havebeenmodifiedormergedwitha"D"code.-Changeinthe"D"codes(disciplines):duetotheadditionofnewfieldsofscience,thenumberof"D"codeshasbeenexpanded.Thereare41newdisciplines.-“C"codeshavebecome"E"codes(interdisciplinarystudies),andareincludedinacategory"interdisciplinarysciences".

Thereisnoindicationofwhetherthedataintherepositorywereamendedatthistimetoreflecttheschemechange.Therepositoryconsistsoflinkstoinstitutionalrecords.Thatis,authors“deposit”textsinNARCISbyfirstmakingthemavailableintheiruniversityorinstitute-basedonlinerepositoriesandthenlinkingtotheNARCISportal.Thismakesanysuchshiftinknowledgerepresentationunlikely.Accordingtothewell-knownworkbyTennis(2006;2007)thisraisestwosituationsforrecordsclassifiedusingNARCIS.Firsttheproblemofsubjectontogeny(Tennis2002;2012);therelikelyaremanyclassifiedterms(areasofinterest,forexample,orolder“fieldsofscience,”orformerCcodesthatnowhavebecomeEcodes)forwhichrepresentationhasshiftedfromtheearlierversionoftheclassification.Second,thereisnowaytoconnectrecordsrepresentedbyeitherversionoftheclassificationtogethertosupportcollocationorpreciseretrieval.5.0SummaryandconceptsforSIG/CRTheNARCISclassification,criticismsabovenotwithstanding,supportsavitalresearchportalthat,inturn,supportsanationally-coordinatedresearcheffortdesignedtoprovidebetterinter-institutionalcommunicationofscholarlyproductivity.InmanywaystheNARCISclassificationistypicalofdomain-dependentinstitutionalknowledgeorganizationsystems.Unlikegeneralbibliographicsystems,theseclassificationsaredesignedtomeetspecificdomainrequirementsoverandaboveeitheruserneedsorgeneralknowledgediscoverypriorities.StudyingtheNARCISclassificationfromthepointsofferedinthispaperisusefulforSIG/CR.Themainpoints,toreiterate,are:

-Domain-dependence:theclassificationisderivedbyandfortheresearchinstitutesofTheNetherlandsandthereforereflectstheculturalimperativesoftheNetherlands’researchcommunity,butattheexpenseofempiricalknowledgerepresentation.-Asynthesis:theclassificationhasnosyntheticfeatures,defeatinganyattemptattheuseoffacetanalyticaltheory,whichalsorisksobscuringknowledgerepresentationofspecificphenomenawithinitsdiscipline-basedsilos.-Interdisciplinarity:inter-,trans-andmulti-disciplinarityarehighprioritiesforglobalknowledgediscovery;theclassificationisolatesinterdisciplinarycommunities,andobscuresthephenomenaofinteresttointerdisciplinaryresearch.

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 7

-Schemechange:theclassificationhasbeenoverhauledonce,likelycreatingtheproblemsofsubjectontogeny

The2017SIG/CRcallforpapersaskedfor“conceptualandtechnicalissuesofcreatingarelationshipamongontologies.”Thefourpointsraisedinthispaperserveasstartingpointsforsuchagatheringofconceptualaspectsofinteroperability,aswellas(onehopes)usefulcriticismsofaworkingdomain-dependentclassification.ReferenceChoi,Inkyung.2017.“VisualizationsofCross-culturalBibligraphicClassification:Comparative

StudiesoftheKoreanDecimalClassificationandtheDeweyDecimalClassification.”InNorthAmericanSymposiumonKnowledgeOrganization2017.http://www.iskocus.org/NASKO2017papers/NASKO2017_paper_21.pdf

DANSa.DataArchingandNetworkedServices(DANS),RoyalNetherlandsAcademyoftheArts

andSciences.“AboutNARCIS.”https://www.narcis.nl/about/Language/enDANSb.“NARCISClassification.”https://www.narcis.nl/classification/Language/enScharnhorst,Andrea,RichardP.Smiraglia,ChristopheGuéretandAlkimAlmilaAkdagSalah.

2016.“KnowledgeMapsoftheUDC:UsesandUseCases.”KnowledgeOrganization43:641-54.

Smiraglia,RichardP.2014.Cultural Synergy inInformation Institutions.NewYork:Springer,

2014.Smiraglia,RichardP.2015.“CulturalPervasivenessorObjectiveViolence?:ThreeQuestions

aboutKOSasCulturalArbiters.”In26thASIS[T]SIG/CRClassificationWorkshop,ed.MelissaAdler.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7152/acro.v26i1.14981

Szostak,Rick,ClaudioGnoliandMaríaLópez-Huertas.(2016).InterdisciplinaryKnowledgeOrganization.Switzerland:Springer.

Tennis,JosephT.2002.“SubjectOntogeny:SubjectAccessthroughTimeandtheDimensionalityofClassification.”InChallengesinKnowledgeRepresentationandOrganizationforthe21stCentury,IntegrationofKnowledgeacrossBoundaries:ProceedingsoftheSeventhInternationalISKOConference,10-13July2002Granada,Spain,ed.MariaJ.López-HuertasandFranciscoJ.Munoz-Férnandez.AdvancesinKnowledgeOrganization8.Würzburg:ErgonVerlag,54-59.

Tennis,JosephT.2006.“VersioningConceptSchemesforPersistentRetrieval.”BulletinoftheAmericanSocietyofInformationScienceandTechnology32no.5:13-16.

Tennis,JosephT.2007.“DiachronicandSynchronicIndexing:ModelingConceptualChangeinIndexingLanguages.”InInformationSharinginaFragmentedWorld,Crossing

ASIS&T2017SIG/CRWORKSHOP–PRE-CONFERENCEVERSION 8

Boundaries.Proceedingsofthe35thAnnualMeetingoftheCanadianAssociationforInformationScience/L’AssociationCanadienneDesSciencesDeL'information,Montreal,editedbyC.ArsenaultandK.Dalkir.Montreal:CanadianAssociationforInformationScience.

Tennis,JosephT.2012.“TheStrangeCaseofEugenics:ASubject’sOntogenyinaLong-LivedClassificationSchemeandtheQuestionofCollocativeIntegrity.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology63:1350-59.doi:10.1002/asi.22686

Tennis,JosephT.2013.“EthosandIdeologyofKnowledgeOrganization:TowardPreceptsforanEngagedKnowledgeOrganization.”KnowledgeOrganization40:42-49.