Journal of Information Science
http://jis.sagepub.com
Relational Indexing. Part I
J. Farradane
Journal of Information Science 1979; 1; 267
DOI: 10.1177/016555157900100504
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/5/267
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
Additional services and information for Journal of Information Science can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jis.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Relational
Indexing. Part I
J. Farradane
University of
Received 17
turn, is a reflecis almost comterms and does
not express structure; ’not’ causes considerable difficulties, because it is wrongly applied to entities,
whereas it should be applied to predicates. Other
attempts to control meaning, such as the use of links
or roles, have also been too unspecific or arbitrary to
be useful. These inadequacies have to some extent
been modified by the application of additional
procedures, such as the truncation of search terms (so
as to cover various grammatical forms, or meaningful
derivatives, of words), or the more involved procedure of ’feedback’ and ’nteraction with the
questioner, verbally or on-Ij’.le, so that the questioner
can ’guess again’ with an altered question, or possibly,
by supplying relevance judgments on an initial output, introduce changes in weighting of terms so as to
bias a further search output in his favour. Several
iterations are often necessary in order to improve
results.
The author’s system of relational indexing has been
subject of several papers in the journal literature (sec
bibliography at end), but no comprehensive exposition of the
system has previously been made. The following description
of the principles of the method, with full examples, and an
outline of its computerization, now provides such a definitive
statement. Many of the details discussed relate to practical
problems raised by students and colleagues.
the
1. Introduction
essen-
tially two indexing requirements:
(1) a method of controlling the vocabulary to be
used, and
(2) a method of structuring terms from the vocabulary to express the meaning between words. Classifications offer a flxed hierarchy of terms, with only
implied, and mixed, relations, or, if faceted, show
either implied relations (free-facet systems) or a
limited number of generalized categories of relations
(e.g. Colon). None of these provide sufficient flexibility for detailed indexing of complex subjects such
Attempts to use computers to analyse original
by means of programs for grammatical or
syntactical analysis, or for statistical word frequency
and/or word co-occurrence computations, have not
demonstrated much better results. Such approaches,
and also the use of compound terms in thesauri, show
that a need is felt for pre-coordination of terms at the
indexing stage. Classifications are fully pre-coordinated systems, but are too static. One special system
of pre-coordination (Hans Selye’s &dquo;Symbolic Shorthand System&dquo; for endocrinology and stress literature)
uses classification for word control and a special set
of symbols to indicate specific technical relations
between terms or special attributes of terms, and has
been reported to be highly successful; it is however
not applicable to other subject fields. Gardin, in his
&dquo;Syntol&dquo; system, uses a grammatically derived set of
categories of relations, but the results have not been
satisfactory. What is needed is a means of expressilig
relations which will be of general application in any
subject and at any level of complexity. Meaning,
texts
articles. The usual coordinate
thesaurus to control the vocaindexing systems
bulary, selected as unconnected terms, and Boolean
connectors (in putting a question) to organize the
meaning. Most thesauri offer only limited indications
of classificatory, or, more particularly, other relations
between terms, intended as an aid to the choice of
words (descriptors) by the indexer or questioner; the
indexer, in the light of his opinion concerning the
subject content of a document, must still decide
which of the available terms will express the subject
(without expressing relations). For many reasons,
Boolean logic (though suiting computer operation) is
inadequate or misleading for structuring the terms in
a question, and in fact expresses accurately only a
small part of the relations between terms which we
as
appear in
to
tion of
July 1979
An information retrieval system involves
indicate in
language, which, in
thought. The Boolean ’and’
pletely unspecific; ’or’ only replaces
try
Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada
journal
use a
considered as relations between terms, must therefore
be analysed directly, unimpeded by the subject
matter or by linguistic considerations. Relational
Indexing, as described here, is a means of expressing
relations on a basis of the mechanisms of thought, to
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
267
268
be converted
directly
into
indexing
notation. The
involved may be very different from
case to case, but the framework of possible relations
is limited and invariant, and thus by-passes the
subject field and linguistic problems, and can be
applied at any level of detail or complexity.
The principal difficulties in appreciating meaning
lie in the complexity and arbitrariness of language,
and often also in the imperfections shown by many
authors in their use of language. Language may be
regarded as a translation of thought into a surrogate
for the purpose of communication (see George
Steiner: &dquo;After Babel&dquo;, Oxford, 1975), but it has not
evolved as a medium of great accuracy, so that
attempts are always in progress to standardize
terminology, at least for teclnical terms. But there
has been no standardization (in common use) for
parts of speech other than nouns or verbs, or of the
structure of sentences or writing styles. Meaning
depends very greatly on the connectives between
nouns and verbs, and these connectives are the means
of expressing relations. In speech and writing,
however, the connectives we use vary greatly, and
often arbitrarilv.
The standardization of words is still very much an
unsolved problem. An authority list, or the more
complex thesaurus, does not include definitions (at
most it has a few scope notes), and it is assumed that
the reader knows the meanings. To make it into a
dictionary would be too cumbersome. The prevention of the entry of synonyms, and the provision of
adequate cross-references to cover them, is not always
well performed. The partial classification, in the form
of broader and narrower terms, and of (rather
vaguely) related terms, should clarify meaning, but is
often misleading. There are no established rules for
citing ’related’ terms. The frequent use of compound
terms, again arbitrarily, bedevils standardization.
Verbs are not well distinguished from nouns. No final
solution to these problems can however be offered
here. Relational Indexing does nevertheless tend to
indicate, in a subtle manner, the types of words
needed for adequate expression of meaning, and
obviates the need for casually used compound terms.
subject concepts
in the
psychology of thinking. It has
sufficient evidence, that these
processes are basically much simpler than might have
been supposed, and yield a system comprising a
limited number (9) of relations (or, more correctly,
categories of relations) between concepts. The term
’concept’ is used here to mean any iiiiit concrete
‘tlring’ or abstract ’idea’, of any level of complexity,
e.g. wood, chair, furniture, design, or theory. A concept is denoted by its r13r11e, which is an association
of a sound or written symbol(s) with the concept.
The concept, in itself, is a remembered pattern or
structure of sense data, as acquired by sigl, hearing,
touch, etc., but its namc, once learned, and defined,
obviates the need for deeper analysis. Furthermore, if
a word (name), however complex in meaning, it clearly
known, it should be used as such in indexing, and
should not be substituted by two or more explanatory terms, though the ’lower level’ terms may be
used individually in their own right. Language, however, involves many ambiguities, and care is always
necessary to ensure that a word is used with one
exact meaning in mind. In a thesaurus it is usually
assumed that the reader knows the meaning of words,
but, without definitions, unforeseen difficulties often
arise. For Relational Indexing, only concepts which
are nouns or verbs are to be used. For consistency,
also, it is recommended that all verbs (actions, operations or processes) be used in the form of the present
participle, ending in ’ing’ (if possible); this also avoids
confusion between other meanings that occur when
a verbal noun is used, e.g. it avoids confusion between
’governing’ and ’government’, when the latter might
be taken to mean ’tlie government’, or some more
abstract concept of government. Occasionally,
however, an action is to be considered by itself, and
not applied to something else (at least in the context
of a given document), e.g. system of analysis (analysis /; system) or camera for photography (photography /, camera) - see later for the notation where, although ’analysis’ or ’photography’ do really
investigated
been
found,
on
imply analysing or photographing something, it is the
technique as such which is in these cases the main
subject. The noun form of the action is then quite
correctly usable, but such
2. The basis of relational
indexing
Since the true basis of meaning exists in our
the system of relations to be described here
is based upon an analysis of thought processes, as
thought,
treatment must be careboth the noun and gerund
must of course be accessible
in the thesaurus or other list....
Adjectives must not be used alone as concepts;
they can, however, be added after nouns, with an
intervening comma, if necessary (see examples, later),
fully standardized, and
form (with scope notes)
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
269
and searched for, or not, as desired. In some cases the
use of compound terms (two or more words) is however unavoidable, e.g. ’aromatic compounds’, ’photographic emulsion’, ’boiling point’. In such cases, the
use of the noun first, followed by the adjective,
would give unsouglt first terms, or terms implying a
different meaning. Any such compound term must
also be a matter of careful standardization. A term
such as ’ultraviolet light’, although it is a well-known
combination, is however better standardized as ‘light,
ultraviolet’ since it may be useful to be able to search
for the word ’light’ alone.
A relation exists between two concepts when
some meaning is implied between them in the mind.
The psychological aspects are unfamiliar and look
abstruse at first, especially since they expose some of
the vaguer interconnections which thought produces
in the absence of exact knowledge. If, however, the
relations are studied in terms of practical situations of
the expression of meaning between concepts, their
use is greatly simplified and memorized, so that
recourse to the theoretical basis for elucidation of a
difficult subject statement is only very rarely neces-
3. The relations
Table 1 shows the relations in the
The analysis of
the mind has
’mechanisms’ for interconnecting
concepts: association and discrimination. Each
mechanism develops into three fairly well-defined
stages, and a child, as it grows, develops the capacity
to use both mechanisms together. Association is
developed quite quickly, though not at first with
complete assurance; discrimination is much slower in
development. These processes which develop in the
child remain as the mechanisms of thought in the
adult. It is not the mechanisms which vary to produce
the great variety of knowledge and thought in
different people, but the stocks of concepts which are
acquired by the different experiences of individuals,
and to some extent also their differences in intelligence, which controls the ability to use the mecha. nisms, and their different memory capacities. It is the
nine combinations which result from the two sets of
three-stage mechanisms which are the basis of the
relations between concepts, and these nine relations
(together with their possible negations) have been
found in practice to be necessary and sufficient to
express meaning in all subject fields. In terms of the
basic relations, the mechanisms of our thought are
not different in different subject fields. Where our
knowledge of a subject (that is, the relation between
two concepts) is vague or insufficient (even though
two main
thinking shows that
setting of their
origin.
The typewriter symbols, which are slighly mnemonic. have been devised for ease in writing meaningful
‘strings’, etc. of terms, e.g. A /- B /; C. The names
below the symbols are arbitrary, and are provided
only for
ease of naming, and so referring to, the
relations. In a computerized system the relations can
be recorded as the numbers 1 to 9 (and 10 to 18 for
their negations, which are rarely required). The names
of the columns and rows are, it is hoped, more
expressive. Some brief explanation of the psychological basis of the relations may be useful at this stage,
but this can soon be replaced by the meanings they
express in
practical
Knowledge
of
a
situations.
concept (or
datum) proceeds from
sary.
basically
can talk about it), the result will appear in the
need to use only the less precise (less clearly
associated and/or less clearly discriminated) relations.
we
even
of
mere awareness
a
single
sense
to association
of
a concept first with a word and then with another
concept or concepts. The earliest concepts, beyond
unnamed feelings, which are acquired are those of
external objects, concrete ‘things’; abstract ’idea’
concepts are harder to acquire, and depend, of
course, upon the prior acquisition of language. Even
for adults, however, there are many situations where
one’s
knowledge is only awareness of a new sensation,
or concept, or one knows only that it occurs in
the presence of (concurrently with) another concept;
with repetition of the experience, an association is
formed by memory; sometimes the repetition fails
when expected, and one recognizes that the
occurrence is only occasional (temporary association). The power of discrimination also starts with
mere appreciation of concurrence, without sufficient
experience to make distinctions. There is then the
stage of recognizing that two concepts have characteristics in common (although other characteristics may
be different), so that they are not distinct in conceptualization. Finally, the mind is able to interrelate
concepts which are recognized as being distinct.
The relations which are perceived between two
concepts are produced by the combined effects of the
two types of mental mechanism. The meanings of the
relations have been derived partly from consideration
of the implications of the two mechanisms, but also
thing
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
270
Table 1
by analysis of practical situations and
their probable interpretations. Each of these relations
is actually a category of relations which permits
different shades of meanings as expressed in language,
although the basic sense of the relation is unchanged,
and this will become clear from the definitions given
below. This state of affairs has been considered in
further analysis, which has suggested that the
different aspects of a relation appear to arise from
whether each of the two words connected by a relation is a ’concrete’ or an ’abstract’ concept. If this is
true, one would expect four possible variants of
meaning of a relation according to whether the word
pairs were concrete-concrete, concrete-abstract,
abstract-concrete, or abstract-abstract combinations;
linguistic usage confirms this. It has however been
found quite adequate to use the nine relations (relational categories) as given, and that the use of 36 relations would be far too complicated and unnecessary,
even though language shows the use of different
connectives in some cases, and the same relation may
need to be used with variants of meaning at different
positions in a complex subject. It has been found that
common speech (or writing) contains too many variations in expression, and attempts to derive relations
from natural language have resulted in chaos.
to some extent
3.1. The relations
1. Concurrence
/0 .
Concurrence
or
thing
witten
as
It also expresses ’duration’, which can be introas a word, e.g. annealing /0 duration /= 2 hr,
or omitted, e.g. annealing /02hr. It can also be
used to express ’future action’, as will be discussed
duced
later.
2.
F~/ra/c/?c6’ /=
.
This expresses
complete
or
equivalence in some degree, up to
equivalence (which is the case of synonym,
not the best way of introbe used for the introduction of
OR-term. though this is
ducing it).
It
can
proper names, e.g. polyelectrolyte /= Separan. It also
expresses the idea of something to be considered as,
or to be used as, something else, e.g. sodium /= ion,
molasses /= fodder, acetone /= solvent.
3. Distinctness /)
This is applicable in the expression of the relation
of an imitation or substitute, e.g. man /) statue,
information retrieval /) model, mathematical.
It is rarely required for the expression of mere
awareness of difference, but is sometimes useful to
indicate comparative difference, e.g.
exemplified
The relations can however be
natural language terms as follows:
with
(expressed linguistically also as encyclopaedia of
chemistry, even though ’of involves other types of
possible meaning).
exemplified
juxtaposition (mentally) of
in
The two
recorded
one
occurrences of the term speed must be
separately; in such a case, greater clarity
might perhaps be achieved if one could add, say, /=
40 km/hr’ after the second entry.
another, e.g. A in the presence of B,
A
/0
B. It also expresses the relation of
bibliographic form, e.g. chemistry /0 encyclopaedia
4.
Self actiaitv /*
The
meaning of this relation of
concurrence
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
with
271
temporary association has been difficult
theoretically,
practice.
but
to assess
meanings have been found from
It suffices to express the intransitive verb situation, e.g. man/* walking, bird /* migrating. (The
is applied to such an intransitive
the
term
action,
’operation’ is used for a transitive
This
relation
must not be used with a transiaction.)
term
’process’
tive verb, even though linguistic custom appears to
make it suitable, e.g. ’a child receiving a gift’ is not to
be indexed as:
but is
‘gift /- receiving /; child’ (gift receiving by
child). Such constructions will be discussed later with
more examples. It has also been found to be suitable
to express the dative case of ’to’ (or the ablative
‘from’; but see relation 9, /: , for the sense of ’arising
from’) where there is an indirect object of an operation, e.g. children /* French /- teaching, for ’teaching
French to children’; the meaning becomes clear on
reading the analysis from right to left. (Note how
language may be misleading if one says ’teaching
children French’.) It should be noted that /* implies
’to’ only for the dative case situation (as read, exceptionally, from right to left), and is to be used
sparingly; it must not be confused with ’into’ or ’on
to’, which are positional relations, e.g.
states, and certain temporary properties.
Space may concern just relative position, e.g. shelf /+
position above /+ table (note the difficulty of terminology for such relative position), or actual position, e.g. book /+ shelf, or place, e.g. manufacturing
/+ England. Similarly, relative or actual time may be
expressed, and the relation of rate or speed, e.g.
engine /+ speed. These temporary states also include
temperature, electric charge, crystalline form (e.g.
salt /+ crystal), solution (e.g. salt /+ solution), etc.
The relation also applies to variable properties of
amount or size, e.g. number, weight, volume, concentration, pH (acidity), etc.
(Note that unique properties of a thing take the
relation /( , so that 2 lb of apples is ’apples /+ 2 lb’,
but a particular two-pound apple is ’apple /( 2 lb’).
The relation of quantity can also be recognized in
unusual terminology, e.g. oil /+ loss.
porary
6. Action /This is used for any thing or operation acting on,
or affecting, another thing or action, e.g. clothes /water /- purifying, decomposing /- preventing. Note the order of the words, with the object
of the action placed first. This relation always
detergent,
expresses present action; past and future action will
z
be discussed later.
7. Association /;
This expresses various forms of association, which
may be unspecified, e.g. prison /; disgrace, or the
tool for, an operation, e.g.
knife.
(But see page 272.)
etching /; acid, cutting/:
It may also be used for abstract properties, e.g.
picture /; beauty, or for indirect or calculated (not
intrinsic) properties (imposed by man’s thought), e.g.
food /; purity, machine /; efficiency.
It can also be used to express ’past action’, as will
be discussed further below.
relation of
’adding sugar to (into) tea’. Similarly, ’converting
X-rays to visible light’ is to be analysed correctly as
the light arising from the converted X-rays, i.e.,
for
8.
The relation can also mean ’through’ (reading from
left to right), e.g. ’flowing through a pipe’ becomes
’flowing /* pipe’. It may be noted that in the more
detailed subject ’water flowing through a pipe’ two
meanings of the relation may arise within one
subject: water /* flowing /* pipe, and it will be seen
that the two meanings have similarities.
5. Dimensional /+
This expresses
position
in space
or
time,
tem-
an
agent of,
or
Appurtenance /(
This expresses the whole-part relation, e.g. table /(
or the organ of a body, e.g. pig /( liver, or an
intrinsic ingredient, e.g. tea /( caffeine. (It may be
noted that one can distinguish such a case from sugar
(added) in tea (now the beverage) by writing ’sugar /+
tea&dquo;, but the two meanings of ’tea’ would have to be
leg,
separated
in
a
thesaurus.)
It also expresses the generic relation, e.g. genus /(
species, if it were desired to express this specifically
in a subject (and not find it by reference to a
thesaurus
or
classification).
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
272
This is also the relation for all intrinsic direct
physical properties of a particular material
e.g. metal /( density, tube /( diameter.
9. Functional
or
thing,
dependence /:
This expresses the relation of one thing causing or
producing something, which is also describable as a
product arising out of (or partly arising out of) an
initial thing, e.g. wheat /: bread, computer /: output;
author /: book. It thus expresses ’cause and effect’
which is a special case of functional dependence. It is
especially applicable in indexing chemical reactions,
e.g. sucrose /: sucrose esters /- synthesizing, coal tar
/: dyestuffs /- manufacturing. It should be noted
that one should not index a material thing as arising
from an action, which is an abstract term; the
product arises from the object of the action, e.g.
raot water
language
as
/- heating /:
’steam from
steam, as might be said
heating water’.
in
3.?. The order of concepts
The slash which precedes the ’punctuation’ symbol
in each relational code indicates the ’direction’ of the
relation. The relation is always to be understood
(read) as proceeding from left to right, or, in twodimensional diagrams, which are needed for more
complex subjects, from top to bottom (see many
later examples), and the second concept is that which
is in some way subordinate to, or later in time than,
the first concept; the second concept thus adds additional detail (depth of indexing) to the subject
than by literal interpretation of some frequently used
linguistic expressions, especially in regard to the
meaning of prepositions. A common type of expression is ’page in a book’, which really means a
(particular) page of a book, since the page is part of
the book, i.e. ’book /( page’ (not ‘page /+ book).
Similarly, note the different meanings of ’of in the
expressions: ’colour of a rose’ (property), ’sport of
kings’ (what kings do), and ’book of the film’ (book
from which the film was made). Other examples of
correct meaning of ‘ot~ have already been shown, as
in: chemistry /0 encyclopaedia (encyclopaedia of
chemistry),
and
information
retrieval
/) model
(mathematical model of information retrieval). In
speech, very varied prepositions are used for
’position’, e.g. ’living on the third floor at (of) a hotel
in London’. Similarly, very varied prepositions may
be used in language to express most of the other relations. In some cases language dispenses with a
preposition, although a relation is intended, e.g.
’computer output’ for ’output from a computer’.
common
When the indexer has become accustomed to the relations, as defined, the underlying basic, and correct,
relation (meaning) between two concepts will more
easily become apparent.
The idea of ’operation /; agent’ must not be confused with the situation where one action is really
part of another, even when the word ’by’ is the usual
linguistic connective. E.g., ’cooking meat by frying’
does not mean the frying is the agent of cooking, but
that it is the species of cooking, and should be written
as ’meat /- cooking /( frying’. This is the correct
analysis even when the second action applies to a
different object, e.g. ’purifying
water
by precipitating
impurities’ is:
represented by the first concept. The dative case, as
noted above, provides the only exception to the
’reading’ rule. It has been found useful, for consistency, to standardize actions (operations) to provide
the order of the passire construction of a sentence,
i.e. an action follows the thing acted upon, the agent
of the action follows the action; similarly properties
follow the thing possessing the properties, and so on.
Of course, in
an
intransitive situation, the action
(process) follows the originator of the action. With
practice, this order soon becomes a simple, meaningful habit.
3.3. l7ie ambiguity
Language,
as
uf prepusitions
commonly used, is often misleading,
to analyse meaning more basically
and it is necessary
since the impurities are associated with the water.
The same form of analysis applies to the situation of
’methods’ of carrying out an operation, e.g. compound /- analysing /( methods. If, however, the
second action is less clearly part of the first action,
the relation /; is appropriate (see later examples).
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
I
273
Such distinctions may look confusing, but careful
standardizations of sense aid retrieval.
3.4.
Blultiple relationships
-
So far, for the most part, only binary relations
have been exemplified. It is however possible for one
concept to be related to several terms at once, either
by one relation to two or more terms simultaneously
(not by the same relations in different directions), or
by different relations to two or more terms. For
example, a substance may contain, by the relation /(,
two or more ingredients at once, or , as in the case of
steam from water when heated (see above), one concept may be related, by different relations, to several
others. In most subjects, it will be found that one
concept is not related, by different relations, to more
than four other concepts, but cases have been found
where seven different relations at once were possible.
In complex subjects, the procedure of perceiving the
relation between two initial concepts is followed by
adding further terms by suitable relations, so that A /
B is extended to A / B / C. until the whole subject is
expressed in a complete diagram, as subsequent full
examples will show.
3.5.
Distinguishing meaning by relations
The relations also
permit sensitive distinctions of
meaning which, carefully used, enable different types
of records to be separated. Thus, the use of /( for
intrinsic physical properties, /; for indirect or calculated properties, and /+ for variable temporary
properties, enables more exact subjects to be
separated by the indexing from more diffuse subjects,
with greater precision in retrieval. Some properties,
such as ’hardness’, which are not quantitative, but are
measured by comparative ranking, are nevertheless
better treated as intrinsic, e.g. steel /( hardness. Similarly, transitive actions, expressed by /-, can be
separated from intransitive actions, expressed by /*,
when the verb used is the same; for instance, the
on the physical chemistry of the intransitive
(self-acting) process: sugar /* crystallizing can be
separated from the manufacturing operation:
even
literature
/- crystallizing. Furthermore, a present, ongoing, action indicated by /- can be separated from a
past action (which has virtually become an associated
property) by using for the latter the relation /; , e.g.
potatoes /- washing indicates an action actually
occurring, and potatoes /; washing is equivalent to
sugar
’washed potatoes’, but still permits retrieval on the
&dquo;washing’. It also permits the subject to be
enlarged by a further, present, action, as in
term
which
’storing washed potatoes’. The actual
of
the indexing ‘diagrams’ can be varied
arrangement
as long as the direction of the relations is clear, so
that one could write:
means
and perhaps so allow for the addition of further relations and terms in a complex subject; it is however
best to use the clearest representation of the relations
that is possible for a given subject, as it makes understanding of the indexing diagrams, and their checking,
simpler. Good analysis is aided by clear diagrams. In
the computer input, however, the diagrams are
converted to a set of binary relations.
Consideration of the meaning of a llltllre action
has led to the conclusion that the notation should be
/6 . This has however rarely proved necessary in the
indexing of actual literature. It will be noted, however, that in all these cases the gerund verbal form
used still remains unchanged.
The ease of indexing any complex subject will
depend very much on the clarity of expression, in
ordinary language, of the subject statement to be
indexed. It will also depend on the accuracy of knowledge expressed in the subject. Where that accuracy is
lacking, the relation tends to be in the top line of the
table of relations; for example, ’association’ implies a
vaguer meaning than ’appurtenance’ or ’causation’.
Sometimes, also, a relation in the left-hand column
may be more appropriate for a vaguer relation than a
relation more to the right in the table, e.g. /=. expressing some degree of equivalence, indicates a vaguer
relationship than that given by /+ or /( , so that
’sodium /= ion’ is a better representation than
’sodium /+ ion’, since an ion is not exactly a ’state’.
Other examples will be apparent later. Once decided,
such analyses can be standardized.
In a few cases, language involves semantic ambiguities which cannot be resolved, and must virtually be
disregarded. For example, a salt solution (salt in a
state of being dissolved) is ’salt /+ solution’, but when
it is poured (’pouring a salt solution’) the word ’solution’ becomes, by a subtle transformation, an entity
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
274
still write ’salt /+ solution
fact that a direct physical
property may vary under different conditions does
not make it into an indirect property (/;) or a variable
(ad hoc) property (/+), so that /( is still to be used for
e.g. elastomer /( resistivity, variable.
It will now be clear that the exercise of analysing a
complex subject for relational indexing involves a
type of (psycho-logical elucidation which may at
first appear artificial. Since, however, as is claimed,
the relations are those which are the natural basis of
thinking, if not of language, the method soon
becomes compellingly clear and easy to use. Cases of
apparent difficulty will be found to arise either from
difficulties in determining the exact meaning of
words, or possibly the intended meaning of the whole
subject statement, both being sometimes obscured by
the idiosyncracies of everyday language. Such cases
will be discussed later. It is important not to be
misled by the conventions of language, and not to fall
into a habit of using a particular relation when a
particular connective is used in a text; thus, although
/; is often expressed in language by the preposition
’by’ or ’with’, this is not an invariant guide and may
be misleading.
(a solution), but we must
/- pouring’. Similarly, the
,
,
4.
Indexing techniques
.
4.1. Boolea?i connections
.
.
are a number of notational rules which
the
writing of the indexed representation of
simplify
a subject. No term should be written as related by the
same relation to two other terms in different clirections; the other two terms should be brought
together, i.e., one should not write
There
This rule must be strictly observed; otherwise
analyses may be produced. It is not that
faulty
is wrong in meaning, but that non-observance of the
rule may obscure the correct analysis of a complex
subject of which it is part. The rule will not affect the
capability of retrieving a given combination of terms.
In such cases, moreover, the application of the
Boolean connectors may meaningfully come into play
as an aid to the indexer’s intention. If the terms B
and C are clearly in close combination, then this can
be shown by a curly bracket to imply the Boolean
’and’, e.g. an alloy containing copper and nickel is
indexed as:
I
If the Boolean ’or’ is to be indicated,
be used; steel containing nickel
indexed as:
can
a
square bracket
chromium is
or
Both Boolean connectors may appear together; for
example, steel containing iron and chromium or
nickel is:
It will be noted that the Boolean connectors do not
a ’linear’ relation between terms as do the
other relations in the table, but a simultaneous state
of connection of two or more terms to a first term by
one of the relations from the table. The Boolean
connectors are in fact taken from ideas in formal
logic which are imposed upon our thinking at a relatively late stage in learning. Their use in this indexing
is however quite simple, as an aid in analysis, to
clarify the exact terms which are related. These
Boolean connectors will imply their meaning only in
the direction of the relation next to which they are
inserted; if the same meaning is intended on the other
side of the two or more terms connected, the
connector must be added also on the other side. In
some cases, however, the Boolean connectors may
apply on one side only, as later examples will show.
The Boolean connectors are not needed in the computer input for information retrieval. The Boolean
’and’ is implied in all cases by the input and searching
procedures. With adequate standardization of
terminology, searching on alternative terms, or
’generic posting’ of higher terms as well as specific
terms, should not be necessary. The application of
’logical jumps’ (see later) in searching makes the
program very complex if searching on alternative
terms in the question is also introduced; it is much
simpler to enter alternative questions. This will be
considered again in the section on computerization.
imply
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
275
If the Boolean connector is not used, the
be left in a vaguer form, as above:
indexing
and then
the terms
further relation
can be written as
a
applying
to
only
remarked
that Boole originally intended his
be applied to statements, not to single
In
coordinate
concepts.)
indexing, the Boolean ’not’
has often given rise to difficulties. The negation may
be applied to any relation, so that in practice (especially in the computer program) one must allow for
eighteen relations, not only nine. The negative relation is different from the positive form, so that the
two relations can be applied to one concept in
connectors to
can
one
of
different directions, e.g.,
or possibly
.
4.3. Afore
where the dots indicate that
this leaves room for further
With careful diagramming,
can be shown even when
included on the further
D is not related to B, and
additions in the diagram.
such individual relations
a Boolean connector is
side of the connected
concepts.
4.::.
complex diagrams
The
complexity of a relational diagram will of
depend on the degree of detail (depth of
indexing) represented, and this detail will relate to
the complexity of the subject. Some simple subjects
yield just a linear string, e.g.
course
Ring Jiilgrams
There are frequent cases where the statement of a
subject in ordinary language involves the repetition of
word, e.g. ’analysis of a compound by measuring
the spectrum of a derivative of the compound’. This
repetition is clearly undesirable for retrieval, and is
avoided by the creation of a ring in the diagram, e.g.,
a
A ring is ’read’ clockwise for meaning, still taking
each relation in its left-to-right or top-to-bottom
direction (which is essential for the computer input).
Side chains are included as they are reached, but a
longer ’main-line’ chain may be reserved for reading
last. Again, this is only for checking meaning during
indexing; it does not affect the computer input. (See
also the example in the computerization section).
There are a few occasions when it is desired to
show a negated relation, e.g. ’coffee not containing
caffeine’. In this case, a bar is written above the relational symbol, e.g. ’coffee /( caffeine. This, it may be
noted, shows the falsity of the Boolean ’not’, in
coordinate indexing, in application to a concept,
instead of to a relation; it is inaccurate because there
is no such thing as a ’not-concept’. (It may be
which is ’statistics cross-tabulations
production by
’minicomputer for producing crosstabulations for statistics’. A sligltly more complex
subject is:
minicomputer’
or
The depth of indexing may depend on the extent to
which it is worth while, for retrieval, and whether the
detailed additional terms are likely to be sought
terms for retrieval.
Fig.l 1
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
276
Fig. 4
temperature. The dots are only to show the
direction of relational connections; arrowed connecting lines could be used instead.
The subject of Fig. 2 is about an alloy sheet of
thickness 0.5 mm, which has magnetic properties and
contains iron, carbon and silicon, obtained from
rimming steel (an unalloyed electrical steel) which has
been decarburized by hot rolling and subsequent
annealing at 750-800°C for 1-~’ hours.
One or two cases have been found where the two
dimensions of the paper do not suffice to show the
room
Fig.
2.
Fig. 3
illustration that very much more complex
be handled in one diagram, if required,
two further examples are given here.
The subject of Fig. 1 is a comparison of a hammer
mill, grater and rasp for comminuting beet in which
the sucrose and pulp content is quantitatively
analysed on extraction with ethanol and water, at
As
an
subjects
can
interconnections clearly, e.g. as in Fig. 3, but this call
be drawn as if it was a ring seen from above, as in
Fig. 4. The subject is the study of the arrangement of
atoms in a crystal by means of an X-ray diffractometer counter for counting X-rays diffracted by the
atoms. The value of such an elaborate diagram is that
it enables the indexer to check whether the meaning
he intends has been correctly represented; in practice
he might then decide that a simpler form might be
adequate. The diagrams are only an intermediate
which alterations can still be made with
accuracy. As will be described later, the computer
input requires only the statement of each triad, wordrelation-word. taken separately from the diagram.
stage,
at
Downloaded from http://jis.sagepub.com at University of Western Ontario on November 20, 2007
© 1979 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.