A synthetic approach to the classification of music. Review article




Palabras clave:

Post-coordination, Pre-coordination, Subject strings, Classification, Music, Basic concepts, Social diversity, Grammar, Sentences, User interface, Nature of a work, Recall, Precision, Search, Information retrieval, Knowledge organization, Review article.


This paper first reviews the advantages and disadvantages associated with both pre-coordination and post-coordination in classification. It then argues that we can have the advantages of both if we couple a post-coordinated (synthetic) approach to classification with a user interface that privileges the word order in search queries. Several other advantages of such an approach to classification and search are reviewed. It better captures the nature of a work (or object), addresses important issues with respect to social diversity, and facilitates user queries. It produces subject strings that resemble sentence fragments; this serves to clarify the meaning of terms within the subject string, and makes subject strings more comprehensible since humans typically think in sentences. These various benefits are then illustrated in the classification of works of music. It is shown that many important characteristics of works of music are best handled by such a system. These are generally poorly addressed, or not addressed at all, by existing approaches to the classification of music.


Austin, Derek W. (1974). Precis: a manual of concept analysis and subject indexing. London: Council of the British National Bibliography. ISBN: 0900220422

Bliss Bibliographic Association (2017). The Bliss Bibliographic Classification: using the scheme. http://www.blissclassification.org.uk/bcclass.shtml

Börner, Katy (2006). “Semantic association networks: Using semantic web technology to improve scholarly knowledge and expertise management”. In: V. Geroimenko & C. Chen (eds.), Visualizing the semantic web: XML-based internet and information visualization (pp. 183-198). London: Springer. ISBN: 978 1 4471 3737 5

Cer, Daniel; Yang, Yinfei; Kong, Sheng-yi; Hua, Nan; Limtiaco, Nicole; St. John, Rhomni; Constant, Noah; Guajardo-Céspedes, Mario; Yuan, Steve; Tar, Chris; Sung, Yun-Hsuan; Strope, Brian; Kurzweil, Ray (2018). Universal sentence encoder, arXiv:1803.11175v2 [cs.CL] 12 Apr 2018. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.11175.pdf

Firth, John R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978 0 197135488

Foskett, Antony-Charles (1996). The subject approach to information. London: Library Association. ISBN: 978 1 856040488

Furner, Jonathan (2010). “Philosophy and information studies”. Annual review of information science and technology, v. 44, n. 1, pp. 161-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2010.1440440111

Furner, Jonathan (2014). “Information without information studies”. In: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan & T. M. Dousa (eds.), Theories of information, communication and knowledge: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 143-179). New York: Springer. ISBN: 978 94 007 6973 1

Gnoli, Claudio (2008). “Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization”. Knowledge organization, v. 35, n. 2-3, pp. 137-149. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-137

Gnoli, Claudio (2016). “Classifying phenomena. Part 1: Dimensions”. Knowledge organization, v. 43, n. 6, pp. 403-415. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2016-6-403

Gnoli, Claudio (2017a). “Classifying phenomena. Part 2: Types and levels”. Knowledge organization, v. 44, n. 1, pp. 37-54. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-1-37

Gnoli, Claudio (2017b). “Classifying phenomena. Part 3: Facets”. In: Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization, Richard Smiraglia and Hur-Li Lee (eds.). Würzburg: Ergon, pp. 55-67. ISBN: 978 3 956502736

Gnoli, Claudio (2018). “Classifying phenomena. Part 4: Themes and rhemes”. Knowledge organization, v. 45, n. 1, pp. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-43

Gorman, Jamie C.; Cooke, Nancy J.; Salas, Eduardo; Keyton, Joann; Beck, Stephenson J. (2010). “Perspectives: Examining communication as macrocognition in STS”. Human factors, v. 52, n. 2, pp. 335-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810371338

Hjørland, Birger (2012). “Is classification necessary after Google?”. Journal of documentation, v. 68, n. 3, pp. 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225557

Hjørland, Birger (2014). “Information science and its core concepts: Levels of disagreement”. In: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan & T. M. Dousa (eds.). Theories of information, communication and knowledge: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 205-235). New York: Springer. ISBN: 978 94 007 6973 1

Integrative Levels Classification. ISKO. http://www.iskoi.org/ilc

Jacob, Elin K. (2004). “Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference”. Library trends, v. 52, n. 3, pp. 515-540. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Classification-and-Categorization%3A-A-Difference-a-Jacob/544f3fbb77f9d2b414daa69e26de0960facc1438

Leon manifesto (2007). http://www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php

Lyttle, Melanie A.; Walsh, Shawn D. (2018). “Leaving dewey for BISAC”. Public libraries online, Nov. 6. http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2018/11/leaving-dewey-for-bisac

Marty, Paul F. (2014). “Digital convergence and the information profession in cultural heritage organizations: Reconciling internal and external demands”. Library trends, v. 62, n. 3, pp. 613-627. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2014.0007

Olson, Hope A. (2007). “How we construct subjects: A feminist analysis”. Library trends, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 509-541. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2008.0007

Ranganathan, Shiyali R. (1962). Elements of library classification. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

Repko, Allen; Szostak, Rick (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISSN: 978 1 412988773

Šauperl, Alenka (2009). “Precoordination or not?: A new view of the old question”. Journal of documentation, v. 65, n. 5, pp. 817-833. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910983128

Smiraglia, Richard P. (2001). The nature of “a work”: Implications for the organization of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. ISBN: 978 0 810840379

Svenonius, Elaine (1993). “Pre-coordination or not? Subject indexing in the 90s: principles and practices”. In: Holley, R. P.; McGarry, D.; Duncan, D.; Svenonius, E. (eds.). IFLA Satellite Meeting. Lisbon, 17-18 August. Ubcim Publications, v. 15. SAUR. ISBN: 3 598 11251 3

Svenonius, Elaine (2004). “The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations”. Library trends, v. 52, n. 3, pp. 571-587.


Szostak, Rick (2003). A schema for unifying human science: Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture, Selinsgrove PA: Susquehanna University Press. ISBN: 978 1 575910604

Szostak, Rick (2004). Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice, Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN: 978 1 4020 3095 6

Szostak, Rick (2011). “Complex concepts into basic concepts”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, v. 62, n. 11, pp. 2247-2265. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21635

Szostak, Rick (2012). “Classifying relationships”. Knowledge organization, v. 39, n. 3, pp. 165-178.


Szostak, Rick (2017). “Facet analysis without facet indicators”. In: Smiraglia, Richard; Lee, Hur-li (eds.). Dimensions of knowledge: Facets for knowledge organization. Wurzburg: Ergon, pp. 69-86. ISBN: 978 3 956502736

Szostak, Rick (2019). Basic Concepts Classification. ISKO Encyclopedia of knowledge organization. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/bcc

Szostak, Rick; Gnoli, Claudio; López-Huertas, María (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Berlin: Springer. ISBN: 978 3 319 30148 8

United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (Unspsc) (n.d.). https://www.unspsc.org




Cómo citar

Szostak, R. (2020). A synthetic approach to the classification of music. Review article. Profesional De La información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.05



Artículos de revisión / Review articles


La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.


Cargando métricas ...