One user I know sees nothing wrong with this. To him, "History" is the "form" and he sees nothing wrong with the order of the above headings. If we were to accept this, we'd then have to think about subdivisions like-Politics and government, and-Foreign relations, which would probably be thought to be "topics" and therefore would be followed by dates.

Langridge also sees "History" as a "form," but as a "form of knowledge" rather than a "form of writing." He writes that there are relatively few forms of knowledge that are fundamental. He says these should not be confused with "main classes" which are merely matters of convenience in arranging classification schemes-schemes using decimal numbers have ten main classes, while schemes using letters appear to have 20 or more main classes. Nor should forms of knowledge be confused with "discipline," which the dictionary defines as a "branch of learning"-e.g., psychology is a discipline, not a form of knowledge.

According to Langridge, Aristotle saw three forms of knowledge: Theoretical, Practical, and Productive. More recently Collingwood identified five forms of knowledge: Philosophy, Science, History, Religion, and Art. But Langridge says Collingwood's forms are all "Theoretical." Aristotle's Practical and Productive were left out. Langridge proposes a list of 12 forms of knowledge (p. 24):

In this schema one can have a philosophical knowledge of a topic, or a social science knowledge, or a historical knowledge, etc. For example, a philosophical knowledge of education would involve analysis of central questions in the field. A human or social science knowledge of education would abstract, generalize, and predict. A historical knowledge would describe and interpret past education at various times and places. Criticism would describe, interpret, and evaluate. A personal experience narrative by an educator would give relatively little knowledge about education compared to the knowledge it would give about the person.

From Langridge's list, six terms are allowed by LCSH as subdivisions under certain topics and/or geographic headings: Philosophy, Technology, History, Religion, Art, and Criticism. Are these all considered to be "form," rather than topics, when used as subdivisions? Or only some of them? Which ones? When? ("Natural science" and "Human science" are both "see from" references in LCSH, and the other four items in the list are not in LCSH with the wording used in this list.)

Langridge begins his chapter on "Forms of writing" with the following:

The fundamental forms of knowledge, their specializations, and the topics discussed within them exhaust the idea of subject matter in documents. There remain a number of very important characteristics requiring identification which have always been treated as part of the process of subject analysis. I shall refer to these as formal characteristics to distinguish them from the real subject features. Though none of these formal elements alters the subject of a document, some of them can make a considerable difference to its treatment or presentation. (p. 45)

Langridge says there are many methods used in writing, but only two pervade the whole document enough to become part of its description: case studies and comparative method. In fact comparative method is so important in subjects like religion, education, and literature, that it is regarded as a primary characteristic in subject analysis.

Langridge next discusses intellectual level. First, there is the distinction of advanced vs. elementary. Next, he makes a distinction between primary documents and secondary documents (in the sense used in law, not the sense used in history, where "primary" is used to mean source documents.) Primary documents are original documents, while secondary documents are either textbooks or works describing procedures or techniques. The last kind of intellectual level is that which has a particular type of audience in mind.

Langridge states that the characteristics discussed thus far in his chapter on forms of writing could be subsumed under the heading "nature of thought." The remaining characteristics belong to the "nature of the text." First is the medium of communication: 1) language (including translation); 2) mathematical symbols; 3) pictorial. The remaining characteristics refer to the structure of a text and are commonly known as "bibliographic forms." Langridge places the major ones into related groups, but without any heading for each group (p. 55):

Monograph, treatise, dissertation, thesis
Essay, lecture, interview, debate, conference Collection, anthology, readings
Outline, digest, abridgement
Programmed instruction, Question and answer form
Reference work (arranged alphabetically or systematically)
Lists: bibliographies, discographies, etc.
Indexes, abstracts, concordances
Classification schedules, subject headings lists

As with every grouping I've seen, there are things here to argue with. For example, why aren't indexes and concordances a kind of reference work? Why isn't "interview" a method like "case study"? Nevertheless, the grouping as a whole serves to help us see a difference between what Langridge calls "forms of writing" and "forms of knowledge," and can also serve as a basis for our own discussion as to whether to make such a distinction.

Question 4. Do we need or want categories that are both exhaustive and mutually exclusive? Is this possible?

In the readings identified in the bibliography compiled by Kathryn Bading there is little agreement about categories of "form" or what terms go into which category. Wilson and Robinson observe:

What is and deserves to be discredited is the idea that genres are fixed, unchangeable forms governed by strict rules. The kinds change over time, the same work can belong to several different kinds (kinds are not mutually exclusive), there are no exact conditions on membership in a kind, kinds are not definable precisely (they are not governed by necessary and sufficient conditions). A set of categories does not have to be "hard edged" (strictly defined, mutually exclusive, all inclusive) to be useful.... (p. 37)

In their "rough classification" of existing form divisions, Wilson and Robinson use the method of prioritizing in order to be able to place forms into only one category. That is, if something falls into the first category, it is placed there and is not considered further, and so on. A paraphrase of these categories follows:

a. works that are not primarily linguistic (including symbolic) works (e.g., aerial photographs, drawings, maps, music)

[All the rest are linguistic.]

b. collections of formatted data (e.g., abbreviations, bibliographies, catalogs, directories, indexes, registers, statistics, [dictionaries ?])

[All the rest are discourse or discursive prose.]

c. works not designed for consecutive reading; works for ready reference and consultation (e.g., encyclopedias, [dictionaries ?], handbooks, manuals, guidebooks, outlines, syllabi)

[All the rest are designed for consecutive reading.]

d. works of fiction

[All the rest are nonfiction: "fact" or pretended fact, speculation, criticism, argument, instruction, propaganda, etc.]

e. composite works (e.g., collected works, literary collections, periodicals, texts, anthologies)

[All the rest are "single" works.]

f. genres of single nonfictional works (e.g., case studies, comparative studies, comic history, interviews, juvenile literature, meditations, popular works, sermons)

[All the rest are single discursive works not falling into "f" because they are nondescript, are of a kind with no conventional name, or are of a kind not thought useful or appropriate to recognize.]

I am not suggesting adoption of this scheme. For one thing it dispenses with all non-book and non-print materials with a single blow, which I doubt that we wish to do. But I think that the concept of a priority order is an interesting one to contemplate. (Although even that is problematical-Wilson and Robinson don't seem to be certain whether "dictionaries" belong in "b" or "c"!]

Question 6. Do all or some "forms" need to be strung onto subject headings or should they be separate? If separate, should they be linked to appropriate subjects in some way? Should use be made of both fields 655 and 755?

This discussion addresses only the last part of this question, i.e., using fields 655 and 755. Dooley and Zinkham delineate four ways that have been used so far to distinguish what goes into the 655 field vs. what goes into the 755 field (p. 46):

a. subject content vs. bibliographic description
b. intellectual category vs. physical medium
c. physical format vs. specific physical characteristics
d. universal attributes vs. copy-specific attributes.

Both the Dooley, Zinkham article and the Zinkham, Cloud, Mayo article point out terms that have been designated 655 by one group and 755 by another group. The following listing gives some of these:

TERM 		655 		755 
Blueprints 	Archivists 	Avery Library
Daguerreotypes 	Archivists 	Avery Library
Autographs 	Archivists 	Rare Books, NUCMC
Galley proofs 	Archivists 	Rare Books
Bookplates 	Archivists 	Rare Books
Drawings 	Archivists 	Graphic Materials, NUCMC
Etchings 	Archivists 	Graphic Materials

It was also pointed out that there are a number of "form" terms that have both physical and intellectual aspects. While these often are multiple word terms (e.g., Portrait drawings), there are also single word terms (e.g., Chapbooks, Registers, Broadsides, Posters, Photographs). One can see that this is true. For example, both a poster and a reproduction of a painting can be printed on paper of exactly the same consistency and size. One tells the difference by looking at them intellectually.

Because these differences have arisen from various sources, some not in ALA, this committee cannot expect to solve the problem. But perhaps we could invite representatives from the various groups (including archivists, rare book, visual material, and other special collection librarians and curators) to come together with us to try to resolve this issue.

Back to Definiton to "Form," "Genre," and "Physical Characteristics" Document