Complex concepts into basic concepts

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of ‘basic concepts’ that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying). © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[2]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong , 1998 .

[3]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  Holism: A Shopper's Guide , 1992 .

[4]  Rick Szostak.  Comment on Hjørland's concept theory , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Rick Szostak,et al.  Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science , 2008, J. Documentation.

[6]  N. Mclaughlin.  The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change , 2000 .

[7]  S. Gelman,et al.  The Essential Child : Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought , 2003 .

[8]  K. Himma.  From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis , 2003 .

[9]  Fulvio Mazzocchi,et al.  Relational Semantics in Thesauri : Some Remarks at Theoretical and Practical Levels , 2007 .

[10]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language , 2003 .

[11]  Christopher S. G. Khoo.  Automatic identification of causal relations in text and their use for improving precision in information retrieval , 1996 .

[12]  Michèle Hudon,et al.  Relationships in Multilingual Thesauri , 2001 .

[13]  Cliff Goddard.  Natural Semantic Metalanguage , 2006 .

[14]  T. Dousa.  Classical Pragmatism and its Varieties: On a Pluriform Metatheoretical Perspective for Knowledge Organization , 2010 .

[15]  Roy Davies,et al.  The Creation of New Knowledge by Information Retrieval and Classification , 1989, J. Documentation.

[16]  R. Szostak.  Interdisciplinarity and Classification: A Response to Hjorland , 2008 .

[17]  S. Laurence,et al.  Concepts and Cognitive Science , 1999 .

[18]  A. F. Chalmers,et al.  What Is This Thing Called Science , 1976 .

[19]  D. Pitt,et al.  In defense of definitions , 1999 .

[20]  Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan,et al.  Prolegomena to Library Classification , 1967 .

[21]  Yu Su.  Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[23]  Ruth Garrett Millikan,et al.  On Clear and Confused Ideas , 2000 .

[24]  Gary H. Merrill,et al.  Ontological realism: Methodology or misdirection? , 2010, Appl. Ontology.

[25]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library , 2003 .

[26]  Rebecca Green,et al.  Internally-Structured Conceptual Models in Cognitive Semantics , 2002 .

[27]  Rebecca Green.  Relationships in Knowledge Organization , 2008 .

[28]  Frank Jackson.  From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis , 2001 .

[29]  Brian Vickery,et al.  Faceted Classification for the Web , 2008 .

[30]  Birger Hjørland.  Concept theory , 2009 .

[31]  J. Prinz.  Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis , 2004 .

[32]  Mats Alvesson,et al.  Postmodernism and social research , 2002 .

[33]  J. Perreault.  Categories and relators: a new schema , 1994 .

[34]  Wolfgang G. Stock.  Concepts and semantic relations in information science , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..