Article Espistemology

ISSN 0005-1055, Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics, 2009, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 57–68. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2009.Original Russian Text © A.V. Sokolov, 2009, published in Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, 2009, No. 3, pp. 1–12.

57

Epistemology

is the branch of philosophy that stud-ies cognitive processes, including different kinds ofknowledge of reality, i.e., facts, ideas (concepts), theo-ries, and metatheories. Documents are one of the prod-ucts of the deliberate social and cultural activities ofpeople included in the subject matter of many scientificdisciplines. In these disciplines, there is no coordinatedinterpretation of a document, and some disciplines donot use such a term as “document” at all. The analysisof document knowledge processes, the estimation ofthe trustworthiness of the acquired knowledge of docu-ment, and, finally, the formation of the concept of a“document” as an interdisciplinary category seem to bethe tasks of the

epistemology of documents

.

Due to documents being products of social and cul-tural activities, the dynamics of their developmentshould be reconstituted in a certain cultural and histor-ical context. However, before addressing this context, itis necessary to accept a working, initial definition of adocument, which can set the pattern for recognizingdocuments in communication processes. We proceedfrom the following obvious considerations:

A) The origin of documents is not natural, but artifi-cial; they are

artifacts

(from

art

and

factum

, whichmeans “artificially made”), i.e., products of culture.

B) Artifacts (implements, utensils, weapons, habita-tions, etc.) have various purposes, while the only use ofdocuments is participation in conceptual (not transport,energy, genetic, or any other type) communication.Documents can’t exist beyond conceptual social com-munication. Therefore, a document should have

con-

ceptual content

; a meaningless object (e.g., a randomset of letters) is not a document, because it can’t beincluded in conceptual communication.

C) Conceptual communication is conceived as themotion of meaningful messages within social time andspace. Therefore, each message acts as a notification(informational function). Messages can be immaterial(oral communication) or materialized (document com-munication). Documents are materialized meaningfulmessages. Each document has

an essential function ofnotification

(informing about something).

To generalize the aforesaid, the considered initialunderstanding of a document is a

communication arti-fact

, which is characterized by the following peculiari-ties:

it is an artificially made object intended to conveya meaning

. I consider this understanding more con-structive than the

“essential definition of document asany object, from which the required information can beobtained”

(italics supplied) proposed by Yu.N. Stol-yarov [1, p. 99]. I believe that Yu.N. Stolyarov’s state-ment is inexact regarding the epistemological aspect,because it identifies a document with “any object” ofhuman cognition, i.e., reality. In fact, any object of real-ity is an inexhaustible source of both “required” and“useless” information. I believe that only purposivelycreated communication artifacts, rather than any arbi-trarily selected “objects,” should be considered as doc-uments. However, the stipulation is required that “anynatural or artificial material object

may become docu-ment

, if it is transformed into a communication mes-sage.” Thus, a museumified monument of Old Russian

The Epistemology of Documents (A Methodological Essay)

A. V. Sokolov

Received January 20, 2009

Abstract

—Documents are the products of the deliberate social and cultural activities of people and areincluded in the subject matter of many scientific disciplines. The formation of the concept of a “document” asinterdisciplinary category is one of the problems that the epistemology of documents deals with. The historicalmethod of epistemology applies to the evolution of document communication. To represent stages of documentcommunication development, the concept of an episteme is used. Common interpretations of documents areconsidered, which have interdisciplinary significance and favor the understanding of document as category ofscience as a whole. It is shown that development of the general definition of document can’t be considered theproblem of any particular documentation theory. It is the problem of unifying theory (metatheory), which iscalled documentology in contemporary investigations.

Key words

: epistemology, document, communication artifact, episteme, documentocentrism, essential func-tions of document, applied functions of document, explication, metatheory, documentology, epistemologicalfunctions of metatheory

DOI:

10.3103/S0005105509020010

58

AUTOMATIC DOCUMENTATION AND MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

Vol. 43

No. 2

2009

SOKOLOV

architecture, a palm in a botanic garden, and Napo-leon’s three-cornered hat can be considered documentsbearing the “required information,” although theseobjects were not initially intended for communicationcognition.

I. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL EPISTEMES AND DOCUMENT GENESIS

As we have a preliminary understanding of a docu-ment at our disposal, we can turn to communicationpractice to familiarize ourselves with the variety of doc-uments, which were practically designed by humanityfor the spreading and keeping of socially importantconcepts. The epistemological historical method tellsus not to fixate on the current situation, but to turn to theevolution of document communication and the meta-morphoses of documents in different historical and cul-tural epochs. Thus, we are forced to face the historicaltypology of cultures. It is considered that each histori-cal stage has its own type of culture. Historians and cul-turological evolutionists practice the division of cul-tures into primitive cultures, cultures of ancient civili-zations, and antique, medieval, Renaissance, modernera and modern (industrial and post-industrial) cul-tures. P.A. Sorokin defined three types of culture in thehistory of humanity, which are sensitive, ideational (or“priestly” in a literal way) and mixed, including ideal-istic cultures [2]. There are many other typologicalapproaches; however, there is no unified stabile histor-ical typology of cultures. Thus, culturologists “intro-duce typologies of cultures based upon the purposes ofresearch or to make the description of cultural and his-torical process more convenient” [3]. However, to actthe same way can’t be avoided.

In bibliology and documentology, it is customary toorient oneself towards technological peculiarities, suchas handwriting, manufactory typography, machinepolygraphy, and electronic documents, which can beeasily observed. Yet, the technological approach isinsufficient for the epistemology of documents,because it makes document genesis dependent on tech-nical progress. As a matter of fact, changes in the spiri-tual demands of society were the prime cause for differ-ent types of documents to appear, and invention of oneor another technical tool was the secondary cause.Therefore, to cognize the evolution of document com-munication, it is important to rely on cultural and his-torical, rather than material and technological, peri-odization of document genesis. The development ofsuch periodization is an important methodologicalproblem of the epistemology of document. An effort tosolve this problem, taking into account typologies pro-posed by culture historians, is presented here.

To represent the stages of document communicationdevelopment, we use the concept of an episteme, whichwas introduced by Michel Faucault (1926–1984) in hisbook

The Order of Things: An Archaeology of theHuman Sciences

(1966; translated into Russian in

1977, Moscow). The word

episteme

denotes socialstructures, which determine the possible states of con-sciousness and culture in a certain historical period. Anintellectual peculiarity of a certain epoch depends onthe relation of “words” and “things.” It is obvious thatdocuments belong to both the ideal “world of words”and the material “world of things.” In Foucault’s fol-lowing works

The Archaeology of Knowledge

(1969)and

The Order of Discourse (1971)

, the concepts of

dis-course

and

discoursive practice

come in the stead of anepisteme and predetermine the progress of science,arts, literature, and culture as a whole. Discoursivepractices are implemented through documents, “whichguide the appearance of statements as single events.”M. Faucault in his culturological works contented him-self with three epistemes attributed to the modern his-tory of European countries. I believe that on the scale ofthe epistemology of document communications, it isrational to define five epistemes, which differ in theirunderstanding of the essence of a document (or book)and in technological equipment.

1. The preliterate episteme

coincides chronologi-cally with the prehistoric period and primitive culture,which is the first stage of cultural genesis (appearanceof culture). Archaeologists and anthropologists haveestablished the correspondence between the appear-ance of a culture and the appearance of materializedproducts of human activities available for other peo-ple’s perception and inherited in a non-genetic way[4, 5]. These products are called “cultural artifacts,”and present-day archaeologists and anthropologistsconsider them as

documents

and sources of scientificinformation. However, it is obvious that the Paleolithicneoanthropes who created these products did not makeall cultural artifacts for social communication pur-poses. Oral communication, as well as verbal and non-verbal intercourses are necessary conditions of anthro-posociogenesis and do not require any material arti-facts. Are documents a necessary condition? As long asthe epistemology of documents has the cognition ofdocument genesis among its problems, it has to answerthe question: did the preliterate episteme include docu-ment communication, and if it did, then what docu-ments were included?

Culturologists, art historians, bibliologists, semioti-cians, and documentologists sometimes touch upon thestated problems. When primitive culture and communi-cation are described, the examples of “object writing,”“knot-writing,” “pictography,” etc. are given [6]; theconcepts of “non-writing,” “forerunners of writing”[7, pp. 184–185] and “proto-writing” [8] are used. Inthese cases, casual communication is meant, in which“proto-documents” are mostly used to deliver conceptsin social space. A separate natural object called a

totem

could be attributed with

magical functions

. The coreidea of totemism is the belief in the origination of mem-bers of a clan from a common magical ancestor: an ani-mal, a plant (a tree or mushroom), or even an inanimateobject that seems to be animated. A totem is a material-


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009

THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF DOCUMENTS 59

ized symbol documenting the unity of a clan. It isbelieved to be sacred, untouchable, and requiring ven-eration; we emphasize that it is a major and

documentedspiritual value

(credo of faith). To communicate withsupernatural powers, a primitive hunter or collectorused a variety of amulets, talismans, tattoos, whichwere recognized as materialized magical concepts, i.e.magical documents.

Paleolithic and Neolithic monuments, including“mobile arts” (small scale forms: small sculpture, fur-nishings, graphics, and carvings) and monumentalforms, such as petroglyphic cave compositions, areconsidered to be the beginnings of depictive art. Appar-ently, these artifacts represent

document messages

playing a rather important role in communication inprimitive cultures. What is the role? A great number ofdescriptively empirical and reviewing publications (forexample [9–11]) are dedicated to early forms of art,however there are no works on the context of the prim-itive documentation episteme known to the author.Nevertheless, it can be stated that document genesis isa necessary part of anthroposociogenesis, because pre-literate documents represented the

materialized socialmemory

of primitive society. Therefore, they bore a

memorial function

, which is initially peculiar to alltypes of documents.

2. Spiritual episteme

(from the development ofwritten language until the distribution of manufacturedtypography in Europe), which is the stage of handwrit-ten booklore. Problems of origination, types of writing,their history and geography, relation of writing withspeech, art, and religion were rather thoroughly studiedin the last century [7, 12–15]. The theorists of gramma-tology proposed the following definition: “Writing isthe system of mutual communication between peopleusing conventional visible signs.” It was admitted thatwriting requirement can be satisfied with a “simple pic-ture or number of pictures with no clear relation to anylinguistic morphogenesis” [7, p. 23]. Hence, a writtendocument represents not only speech, which isrecorded using letters or hieroglyphs, but extralinguis-tic images (pictograms, illustrations, and photographs).Consequently, the development of written languagedoes not represent

the beginning

of document genesis,but it represents a new stage in the history of socialcommunication, the appearance of a

new type of docu-ment

, which is a

written document

, namely, a

book

.

A book as a document message represents therecording of speech “using conventional visible signs.”At first sight, a book seems to be nothing more than atechnical invention that changed the form of passingmessages, without predetermining their contents. Infact, the appearance of the book communication chan-nel meant a change of cultural and historical epochs insociety’s development: the transfer from the preliterate(or barbarian) stage to the civilized stage of handwrit-ten booklore. I believe that if enterprising Phoenicianshadn’t developed alphabetical writing, there would be

neither antic culture, nor Judaism, nor Christianity, norIslam, with the cuneiform “Epos of Gilgamesh” beingthe peak of literary art.

It is clear that writing has replaced primitive proto-writing, but the main achievement of the book wasmaking the spiritual space available to people. That’swhy this episteme is called “spiritual.” “Hieroglyph”justly means “sacred stone,” and all religions of theworld are justly based on “Scriptures.” However, spiri-tuality appeared differently in different types of cul-tures. In cheerful sensitive (according to P.A. Sorokin)antic culture, health, strength, beauty, intelligence,marriage and children, people’s respect, merry andenlightening communication, and hospitality were con-sidered as the main values and these epicurean goodswere glorified in literature. According to F.F. Zelinskii,“the concentration on health in Homer’s poems wassufficient for many centuries to come” [16]. Ideational(priestly) medieval booklore preached sublime pur-poses and requirements and minimization of physicalpleasures, right up to complete asceticism, throughinterpreting the Scripture to illiterate masses.

The spiritual episteme is characterized by the

ado-ration

of the written word, and a book was honored asa great value exploited by the elite of society, i.e. theclergy and aristocracy. The power of the written wordwas esteemed by the ruling classes, who discovered an

essential value system

forming the social function ofdocuments, i.e., the ability of a document not only toconvey concepts (informational function) and preservethem (memorial function), but also to govern the con-sciousness of recipients and change their value sys-tems

1

. Inclusion to booklore played a great part innative history. Byzantine apprenticeship, acquisitive-ness and non-possession, national self-affirmation(Moscow as The Third Rome), Old Belief, and othermovements of Old Russian spirituality were productsof book culture based on the book cult and the venera-tion of bibliognosts.

3. The educational episteme

, including the Renais-sance and the Age of Enlightenment, is the stage ofmanufactory booklore in the technological aspect. It isthe period of

Gutenberg Galaxy

establishment, which“forced the alphabetical human to desacrilize his wayof existence” according to Marshall McLuhan [18].The social prestige of literature was extremely high inthis period, and it is thought of as a focus of science,history, philosophy, law, and arts.

Litterateurs

are rec-ognized as the best people of their epoch, rather thanaristocrats or clergymen. As Denis Diderot wrote in his“Encyclopedia”: “One of the greatest advantages of ourcentury is the multitude of educated people, who caneasily switch from the thorns of mathematics to theflowers of poetry and can make equally competent

1

It is worth mentioning that, according to Yu.N. Stolyarov, P. Otletconsidered documentation relative to pedagogics, because the useof documents forms a world view as school does and favors self-education [17].

60


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009

SOKOLOV

judgment on a metaphysical book or a theatrical play:the spirit of the epoch made them equally fit for highlife and theoretical study; through this, they excel edu-cated people of previous centuries. Many of them havedeep and refined intelligence, which saturates theirworks and conversations and favors the education andenlightenment of the nation in many respects” [19,p. 331]. Along with litterateurs, who were the culturalelite of the epoch, Diderot notes the utility of

journal-ists

, who do not create literary or scientific works orworks of art themselves, but deal with their analysis,popularization, and objective appraisal and formanother category of literary sphere professionals.According to Diderot, “the journalist should have thor-ough and deep knowledge of logic, taste, and astute-ness, as well as broad experience in criticism, and theability to analyze and edify” [19, p. 233]. The educationand enlightenment of the nation was judged by thenumber of literate people and the volume of productionof books, journals and newspapers. Thus, at the begin-ning of the reign of Peter the First, 12 books a werepublished annually and at the end of the reign of Cathe-rine the Second, this was 360 books; Peter establishedthe issuing of newspapers and Catherine establishedjournalism.

The educational episteme is characterized by

liter-aturocentrism

rather than medieval

religiocentrism

.Talented secular writers and thinkers became the dom-inant influence and recognized prophets of their soci-ety. The role of literaturocentrism in Russian history isespecially major. The Golden Age of noble culture pre-sented wonderful examples of fine literature, historiog-raphy, and philology. The role of literature in the prep-aration of the public mind for the abolition of serfdom(D.V. Grigorovich, I.S. Turgenev, N.A. Nekrasov), inthe formation and development of nihilism, the narod-nik movement, Tolstoyism, emancipation of women,and the mythologization of the Russian intelligentsia iswell-known. In this period, the typical trend for criticalrealism was formed to teach, preach, and criticize.

The Russian literary sphere reached the status of acommunication social institute influencing social lifeactively in the period from the second half of the nine-teenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century.In 1913, the issuing of books in the Russian empirecame to 34000 titles (in 1814 there were 234 titles,which means a growth of 145 times); 2028 newspapersand 33 journals were issued (a growth of 61.5 times).The beginning of the twentieth century can be consid-ered as the peak of Russian literaturocentrism, takinginto account the variety of kinds of publications andtypes of literature in addition to the quantitative growthand artistic and polygraphic level of publishing andjournalistic products. Formation of national librariesand national bibliography was a sign of the maturity ofliterary enlightenment. From the point of view of theepistemology of documents, it is especially importantto mention the development of

nonliterary

document

flows circulating in different social and cultural areas.For example:

• record-keeping, including diplomatic statements,restricted documents, managerial correspondence,reports, regulatory documents, and other documenta-tion settled in state archives;

• written documents (including annals, chronicles,manuscripts, apocryphal works, etc.) that can be con-sidered as historical sources; the personal archives ofthe great names of history and literature; and unpub-lished memoirs;

• statistical information at the regional and statelevel;

• inquest and legal proceedings information, andlegal precedents;

• design, manufacturing, and technological docu-mentation of firms including preliminary designs,working papers, technical and economic assessmentsand other unpublished information from firms;

• reports on research and development activities,geological investigations, scientific expeditions, prob-lem memorandums, expert’s reports, etc

2

.An opinion spread in academic circles that represen-

tation of human knowledge of reality in library stocksof books is fragmentary and far from being complete.The conceivable reason was the neglect of nonliterarysources of information. The requirement for archive,source, and document study was recognized. A numberof particular theories were formed, which were dedi-cated to different types of nonliterary (and sometimesnonwritten) documents: diplomatics, numismatics,sphragistics, emblematics, heraldry, paleography, andbonistics. The scope of literaturocentrism expanded atthe beginning of the twentieth century and reached thescope of

documentocentrism

.

Paul Otlet

(1868–1944)was the standard bearer of documentocentrism. The tal-ented (or “brilliant,” as B.S. Bodnarskii used to say)founder of documentation can be called the personal-ized symbol of the educational episteme at the begin-ning of the twentieth century, taking into account hisconcern with social progress, development of sciencesand technologies, distribution of education, and inter-national cooperation. Thanks to Yu.N. Stolyarov’s andR.S. Gilyarevskii’s efforts, we have the presentation ofP. Otlet’s fundamental ideas in Russian at our disposalwith competent assessment of their scientific value [21,22]. Here is the definition of documentation: “Docu-mentation embraces all means and methods of informa-tion and scientific data (books, periodicals, newspapers,circulars, catalogues, etc.) transfer and distribution, orin brief, all documents and information, whetherprinted or handwritten, drawings, or pictures” [21,p. 138]. Document study, which P. Otlet developed,was interpreted by him as the study of books, archives,

2

An exhaustive representation of nonliterary written documents oftoday is provided in Yu.N. Stolyarov’s textbook [20].


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009


and museums. He used to call it “bibliology” or “docu-mentology.”

The colossal program of worldwide education bymeans of documentation planned by Otlet was not car-ried out: the International federation on informationand documentation established by Otlet stopped oper-ating at the end of the twentieth century after celebrat-ing its hundredth anniversary in 1995. Western indus-trial civilization, in its indulgence towards mass ego-ism, exchanged the unselfish educational episteme forthe ideals of the “welfare society” and the “consumersociety.” This was the triumph of the mass episteme, butit was not total, because science, art, education, andreligion maintained the spirit of humanistic altruismand servants of Truth, Beauty, and Good still remained.Therefore, R.S. Gilyarevskii is right when he states thehistorical succession between Otlet’s forecasting previ-sions and methods of scientific informatics develop-ment based on up-to-date telecomputer technics [22,p. 14

−

16]. The significance of the educational epistemefor the general theory of documents can be found indemonstrating two

applied functions

: firstly, the

educa-tional

(pedagogic) function of a book; secondly, the

organizational and administrative

function of adminis-trative record-keeping. These applied functions arederivatives of essential functions of notification andgovernance, which are initial attributes of documents.

4. The Mass episteme

(from the end of the nine-teenth century to the twentieth century) is the stage ofindustrial polygraphy, which provided a fantastic circu-lation of printed production and put machine-readabletypes of documents into use. The slogan of the World-wide exhibition in Paris was: “From a production soci-ety to a consumer society.” The economy of industrialcountries at the beginning of the twentieth century wasconcerned with providing goods and services and mak-ing people’s lives more comfortable, diverse, and inter-esting, rather than the “daily bread.” The urban bour-geoisie and workpeople became the main consumers ofthese goods and services. They had a certain level of lit-eracy and income. They were attracted by plain amuse-ments and games, which compensated the monotony oflabor and casual life at the expense of pretty illusionsand myths. Mass media, such as the press, cinema,broadcasting, and television, chose the path of provid-ing vulgar and primitive concepts called “mass cul-ture,” instead of educating, animating and elevatingmass audiences.

In the period of the mass episteme, documentsacquired new applied functions:

(1) Each document is the product of labor and has itsuse value and, therefore, it can act as a

market product

.The newspaper business was the first to master thisfunction: at the turn of the century the one-time circu-lations of certain newspapers reached 60–100000 cop-ies. N.S. Gumilev divided people into “readers ofbooks” and “readers of newspapers,” giving absolutepreference to the first category. However, the publishers

of books didn’t waste the opportunity to interest theirsegment of the mass audience. The high circulations ofcheap paperback “pocket” books, children’s books andpopular scientific literature targeted at the “averagepasser-by” flooded the market. As a result of the com-mercialization of publishing, book shelves were occu-pied by the pulp literature demanded by masses. As aresponse to the publishing boom of the 1960s, RobertEscarpit introduced his work

The Revolution in theWorld of Books

(1965, translated into Russian in 1972).Owing to technical progress, the arsenal of documenta-tion was supplemented by the telegraph and phototele-graph, different devices of audio and video recording,black-and-white and color, digital photos, and cinetechniques, which became necessary attributes of massculture.

(2)

An Ideological and pedagogical

function, basedon the ability of documents to influence the conscious-ness of recipients (the essential value system formingfunction), resulted in ideological deformation of allprint production in the USSR and fascist states. Thisfunction was supported by another peculiarity of massepisteme—total censorship and bibliocide of an out-standing scale.

(3)

The Information crisis

represents dysfunction,where scientific communication overflows with pub-lished and unpublished documents. There were twoaspects of this crisis: firstly, the physical impossibilityfor a particular scientist to become familiar with all thecurrent publications in his area of special interest; sec-ondly, great information losses in documental IRS(Information Retrieval Systems), that result in the“impossibility to know what we know.” The followingstatements arose: “genius discoveries are made, pub-lished, and buried in library stocks and archives”; “sci-entists work in vain duplicating achievements of theircolleagues due to the archaism (like sailing vessels) ofscientific communication.” Only electronic informationengineering can put an end to this crisis in science.

5. Informational episteme

(since the end of thetwentieth century) is the stage of electronic communi-cation operating electronic documents, which means“contensively coherent information destined for use insociety and fixed in electronic and digital form.” Thepresented definition was given by T.V. Maistrovich as aresult of her thorough analytical and synthetic study ofthe conceptual and terminological aspects of the realproperties and proposed classifications of electronicdocuments [23, 24]. At first sight, this definition seemsto be well coordinated with the interpretations of docu-ments (or books) accepted by our documentation spe-cialists: conceptual contents for communication pur-poses are stated, which are kept in electronic formusing digital codes. It is assumed that these codesinclude an electronic document identifier (entry). How-ever, on a closer examination, the problem seems morecomplex.

62


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009

SOKOLOV

We discover network documents (electronic publi-cations, databases, and websites) with no individualmedium; in contrast to traditional “human-readable”products of writing, “the electronic book” requireshardware and software to decode its contents; lineartext in electronic documents is accompanied by nonlin-ear hypertext, and multimedia editions combine textwith sound and images, which is unavailable for poly-graphic documents. It is unclear how the essentialmemorial function, which is primary for documents,can be realized under the conditions of the short life ofthe electronic media, obsolescence of hardware, andchanges in software. Are re-recording of electronicstocks and the obligatory saving of all generations ofelectronic documents inevitable? Conceptual interac-tion with remote databases seems to be very attractive,but theoreticians argue about whether human-readabletext on a computer display can be called a document.Researchers consider it as a “statistical pseudomaterialobject” [25], or “synchronous document” [20]

3

, or“documentless documents,” as E.A. Pleshkevich pro-posed [26]. The conclusion can be made that thereshould be a special area in documentology dedicated toelectronic documents. Its epistemology hasn’t beendeveloped yet. Therefore, the characteristics of theinformational episteme are to be postponed in favor ofdeveloping an interdisciplinary understanding of docu-ments, taking into account the preceding cultural andhistorical epochs.

II. EXPLICATION OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARY CATEGORY OF A “DOCUMENT”

Cultural and historical epistemes are based on doc-uments, just as all religions of the world are based onScriptures. However, not all culturologists, sociolo-gists, and philosophers recognize this fact. One of thereasons for their misunderstanding is the uncertainty ofthe concept of a “document,” which hasn’t reached thestatus of an interdisciplinary category. In spite of usingsuch terms as “document,” “documentation,” and “doc-umental system” in bureaucratic record-keeping; bibli-ography; library, archive, and museum sciences; sourcestudy; textology; paleography; and scientific and infor-mation activities for more than a hundred years, and inspite of numerous efforts at interbranch coordination,international and state standardization, and everlastingand rather emotional scientific disputes, we are stillunable to comprehend

what a document is per se

.

In the author’s consideration, one of the reasons ofthis inscrutability of the document is that the require-ments of concept explication are not always fulfilledand proposed definitions look random. In logic,

expli-cation

(from Latin “explanation”) means the

develop-

3

Yu.N. Stolyarov distinguishes “diachronic documents” having amore or less durable material medium and “synchronous docu-ments,” such as a creeping line of advertisements, broadcast, filmexhibition, etc. [20, p. 20].

ment of any initial not precise concept into a scientifi-cally approved concept; in other words, the replace-ment of an intuitive concept with a more strict concept

[27]. Of course, not all authors can be accused of asuperficial approach to the cognition of document’sessence. Yu.N. Stolyarov’s doubts of the possibility of auniversal definition of a document are the result of thor-ough and intensive reflections [28]. For about twentyyears, G.N. Shvetsova-Vodka has worked hard, scrupu-lously, and successively on explication of the scientificdefinition of a document. In 1991, she generalized allcollected information into a preprint, which is still pop-ular in our circles [29], then numerous articles, text-books, and doctoral thesis followed, which invariablyhad the term “document” in their titles. The problemappeared to be inexhaustible, and it is indicative thatone of Shvetsova-Vodka’s latest publications was enti-tled “In Addition to the Discussion on the Definition ofa Document” and finished as follows: “We may hopethat consensus will be finally reached by everyone con-cerned. However, it is unlikely to happen on its own,that’s why every opinion is important, along with theparticipation of everyone capable of contributing to thesolution of the discussed problem” [30]. To respond tothis appeal, I turned to the obligatory logical term“explication” to investigate the concept of a “docu-ment” as far as possible at the level of logical defini-tions, rather than at the level of formulas from GOSTsand subjective opinions.

A laborious work on the collection and systematiza-tion of the numerous definitions of the concept of a“document” available in the literature, was done byGalina Nikolaevna. As a result, in her above-mentionedarticle, she quotes eight meanings of the word “docu-ment” beginning with “any material object used totransfer information in society” and finishing by “therecord of jural fact.” We don’t consider specialized def-initions oriented on particular spheres of record-keep-ing, criminal law, and philology. We are interested ingeneral interpretations having interdisciplinary valueand favoring the understanding of a “document” as acategory of science as a whole.

We begin with Paul Otlet’s definition, which refersto the educational episteme. Otlet defined separate doc-uments as “aggregates of facts and ideas presented inthe form of text or images, which are ordered by theircreators in accordance with a classification or plandetermined by the subject or purpose” [22, p. 190]. Theformula belonging to the founder of document studycan be translated into modern language as follows:“aggregate of facts and ideas” = “information” or, moreprecisely, semantic information, i.e., a concept; “text orimages” = “signs or, probably, records”; “ordered inaccordance with a classification or plan” = “syntacticstructure, identifier, or entry.” We acquire the followingdefinition: a

document is information (concept) pre-sented in the form of signs (records), which arestructurally ordered in accordance with conven-tional entries (metainformation)

.


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009


In this definition, we can easily discover three com-ponents: (a) conceptual content; (b) material form =signs recorded on a material medium; (c) metainforma-tion to identify the document in document flows. In sci-entific literature and terminological standards we caneasily find examples of reduced or reformulated vari-ants of P. Otlet’s definition. For example: “a materialobject containing information in a fixed way” [31]; “amaterial object containing the record of semantic infor-mation” [32]; “social information contained on a mate-rial medium, created by humans, in a stabile system ofsigns, destined to be passed in time and space” [33];“information contained on a material medium havingentries, which allow its identification” [34]; “an inde-pendent information object, which is fixed in sign andmaterial aspects” [35], etc.

Yu.N. Stolyarov, Paul Otlet’s present successor, car-ried out the critical comprehension of different authors’formulas. As a result, he proposed the following “gen-eral definition of a document”: “a document is informa-tion, which is artificially fixed on a material mediumwith the use of signs, able to act as the unit of a givensemantic process” [1, p. 102]. If the phrase “able to actas the unit of a given semantic process” supposes theability of “thematic or purposeful ordering (classifica-tion)” of documents as complete conceptual units, thenP. Otlet would probably agree with his successor. Thenecessity of metainformation, which identifies the doc-ument in document flows (component (c) in definitionabove), is worth being emphasized strongly, becausemany researchers of documents using empirical think-ing forget about this necessity. However, there is a moreserious complaint for both Paul Otlet and Yurii Stol-yarov, which stimulates us to proceed with the explica-tion of the concept of a “document.” The problem is inthe limitation put by our thinkers as to the method offixing information, i.e., expressing it through any artifi-cial signs. It makes us think that evidence, archaeolog-ical finds, three-dimensional museum exhibits, andother authentic (representing themselves) objects can’tbe considered as documents. How should we react tosuch an assumption?

In 1951, the authoritative documentation specialistSuzanne Briet published the manifesto “What is Docu-mentation,” in which she provided six representativeexamples of answers to the question of whether anamed object can be considered as a document:

a star in the sky—no,a photograph of the star—yes;a stone in a river—no,a stone in a museum—yes;an antelope at liberty—no,an antelope in the zoo—yes [36].In accordance with these answers, there are three

competing points of view: (1) a document is an artificialobject; (2) natural objects, which can act as documents(to be a museum exhibit, a historical relic, evidence,

etc.), can be considered as documents in addition toartificial objects; (3) living objects, including plants inbotanic gardens or animals in the zoo, which can beused to cognize the wildlife, can be considered as doc-uments. The Otlet–Stolyarov interpretation of a docu-ment is relevant to the first point of view and rejects thesecond and the third. However, we can find indicationsthat museum exhibits, sculptures, and material relicsare to be considered as documents in the works of bothof these scientists. Moreover, Yu.N. Stolyarov pro-moted the original “document relativity theory,” whichstates that any material source of information including“an antelope in the savanna, a stone in a river, and a starin the sky” can be turned into document by the subjec-tive desire of a recipient. Therefore, we have as manydocuments as there are recipients [28, 37].

I have to admit that the definition given byE.A. Pleshkevich seems more constructive to me: “Inthe framework of general document theory, we under-stand a document as an information message fixed on amaterial medium and included in a documentationinformation system using metainformation containedin document entries” [38]. In this definition, we havethree necessary features meant: conceptual content(free information) + material medium + documententry (structural information). Document

entry

means“information elements, which transform an informationmessage into a document by including it in a certaindocumentation information system and supporting thesocial functions of the document.” In addition to exter-nal facts identifying the purpose, the owner, and thedocument status, this understanding covers searchimages in information retrieval languages in the form ofclassification indices or subject rubrics. This is theadvantage of this understanding, that we acquire apromising opportunity to integrate the general docu-ment theory with the general theory of IRS. I considerthat trying to comprehend bibliographic descriptionsand other bibliographic records as primary documententries can be fruitful.

The requirements for a “fundamental definition of adocument” formulated by G.N. Shvetsova-Vodka canbecome a benchmark for the further explication of theconcept of a “document” taking into account its pros-pects of turning into an interdisciplinary category. Therequirements for the definition are the following: thedefinition “should not include any limitations on mate-rial, form, material medium design, and the sign formof expressing information,” and it should include“instructions for using the document in social informa-tion communication process” [30]. The author pro-poses the following “brief fundamental definition of adocument”:

“the unity of information and materialmedium used in the social information communicationprocess as a communication channel”

. This definitionis so broad and brief that it may be applied to livespeech with sound waves and satellite telecommunica-tion systems as a material medium. It is the drawbackof this definition that it neglects the peculiarity of doc-

64


Vol. 43

No. 2

2009

SOKOLOV

uments to retain temporal stability. G.N. Shvetsova-Vodka was absolutely right including this peculiarity inthe “functional essence of a document” (see above).

I believe that to make the definition of a documentclearer, we should replace the polysemantic term“information” with “concept” or “communication”depending on the context. I consider that as the first, oreven the second, approximation to an

interdisciplinarydefinition of a document

we can use the following for-mula:

a stabile artificial material object destined foruse in social conceptual communication acting ascomplete message

. In this definition the followingpeculiarities of a document are taken into account:

(a) The presence of

conceptual content

, becausemeaningless messages (information noise) can’t beused in social conceptual communication.

(b)

Stabile material form

that provides durability ofa document; writings on the sand or pictures on a tele-vision screen are not documents (however, the filmitself is undoubtedly a document).

(c)

The existence of purpose

of using as message(source of concept). R e m a r k . The status of docu-ment can be given to objects that were not originallyintended for communication purposes. Museumifiedminerals, archaeological artifacts, plants in a botanicgarden, and animals in the zoo represent one type ofdocument, because they convey a concept that can be“read” and decoded like a text.

(d)

The completeness

of a document means realiza-tion of the author’s idea and the addition of entries(metainformation) to it, which is essential for includingit in the system of document communication.R e m a r k . Unfinished literary works, rough copies,sketches, and drafts can act as documents characteriz-ing the creative process of their author (writer, scientist,or artist).

The presented definitions show that cognition of adocuments’ essence, origination, functions and typiza-tion is impossible without taking the system of docu-ment communication into account. This system creates,stores, distributes, and processes document messages.The system approach is the necessary methodologicaltool in explication of the concept of a “document.” Theetymology of a document represents a part of documentcommunication system theory, i.e., documentology, asdeclared by Paul Otlet. Thus, we are forced to deal withthe etymological aspects of documentology in the cur-rent article.

III. DOCUMENTOLOGY AS METATHEORY OF DOCUMENT COMMUNICATION

Metatheory

is the result of theoretical knowledgegeneralization or

the theory of theories, a second-degree theory

, so to speak. How does a metatheoryappear? We know that cognition begins with the collec-tion, description, and systematization of empiricalfacts, and comprehension of these facts creates source

of practical recommendations and techniques. Basedon analysis and generalization of practical experience,first-degree theories are developed (conceptual knowl-edge) aiming at discovery of patterns (cause-effectdependencies), which explain the observed facts andforecast them. Theories usually cover not all reality, butits separate fragments; they are controversial and coor-dinate poorly. Therefore, the truth of first-degree theo-retical knowledge is relative. Further extension of cog-nition is reached by generalization of first-degree theo-ries and concepts. This means the transfer to the nextlevel of second-degree theories, namely, metatheories.

Empirical knowledge of documents, i.e., definitionof rules for their description and classification, starts inthe spiritual episteme. Then empirical library and bib-liographic theories are formed and the level of first-degree theories is reached in the twilight of the educa-tional episteme (the appearance of book descriptiontheories [39] and literature classification and subjectanalysis in the nineteenth century [40, 41] can be con-sidered as evidence). The majority of other spheres ofdocument study were at the starting phases of their the-oretical generalization then. Nevertheless, the idea ofgeneralizing document science (in fact, metatheory),introduced by P. Otlet, witnessed the recognition of thenecessity of second-degree theoretical generalization.At present, this necessity is even more obvious.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the firstgeneration of document researchers appeared in ourcountry. This is represented by K.G. Mityaev,A.N. Sokolova, K.I. Rudel’son, M.V. Larin, andG.G. Vorob’ev, who are all Doctors of Science. Theirefforts provided the recognition of archive and docu-ment study and documentalistics as scientific disci-plines [42, 43]. At present, such authoritative and creativescientists as K.B. Gel’man-Vinogradov, N.B. Zinov’eva,S.G. Kuleshov, N.N. Kushnarenko, N.S. Lar’kov,E.A. Pleshkevich, A.A. Solyanik, Yu.N. Stolyarov,G.N. Shvetsova-Vodka, and other researchers developthe problems of document study actively and produc-tively. Each of them defends their own idea of docu-ment communications and scientific concept of a “doc-ument” in rather considerable monographs and text-books. In these works created by experiencedpedagogues, the up-to-date knowledge of documents ispresented rather completely and systematically. Newdefinitions of a document, classifications of documents,and social functions of different types of documents areproposed, and the evolution of document communica-tions is presented.

We can talk about specialized theories of documentstudy developed in such areas as scientific informatics,bibliographology, library stock theory, bibliology, his-torical source study, administrative document study,archive study, and other areas. Efforts toward interdis-ciplinary generalizations and metatheoretical develop-ments have been made. For example,

grammatology

could be included in the metatheory of document study.


Vol. 43 No. 2 2009


The epistemological problem of grammatology wasdefined by the German philologist I.J. Gelb as follows:“While the general history of writing considers partic-ular written languages, mainly in descriptive historicalaspect, the new science makes efforts at discoveringgeneral principles that govern the use and evolution ofwriting applying the comparative and typological appa-ratus” [7, p. 9]. The declared subject of “general princi-ples” and the method of study, which is the “compara-tive and typological apparatus,” show that grammatol-ogy is a typical metatheory rather than a definitespecialized discipline in its epistemological status. Inbrief, there is a rather spacious and prepared back-ground to form the metatheory (generalized theory) ofdocumental communication sciences.

In fact, the work on the development of documentcommunication system (DOCS) metatheory has beencarried out spontaneously for several years. The scien-tific movement is headed by Yurii Nikolaevich Stol-yarov. In fact, he doesn’t use the term “metatheory” andprefers speaking of general science or documentology.Not without reason he states that the “formation of doc-umentology is done, although there are no limits for itsdevelopment” [44]. I believe that the term “documen-tology” consecrated by Paul Otlet’s authority is thesuitable name for DOCS metatheory, however prefer-ences may differ, of course. Instead of arguing aboutterms, we specify the understanding of documentologyas a metatheory and then turn to its metatheoreticalfunctions.

The object of study in documentology is DOCS.DOCS is studied indirectly through knowledgeobtained by particular document theories includingfirst-degree theories, empirical facts, and fantasies likethe “Gutenberg Galaxy.” This is how we acquire a “the-ory of theories.”

The subject matter of documentology is the theo-retical reproduction of a document communication sys-tem.

The purpose of documentology is the cognition ofgeneral patterns of document communication.

The methods of documentology include generali-zation, comparison, the system approach, modeling,deduction, etc, rather than experiments, observations,statistical and sociological surveys, and other empiricaldata.

If there were no wide range of rather well-developedfirst-degree theories of document study, there would beonly a claim for documentology, which existed inOtlet’s times, but no generalizing second-degreeknowledge, because general categories, laws, typifica-tions, and models can’t be directly recognized in empir-ical reality. Documentology as a generalizing theory oftheories represents the core of the document communi-cation discipline complex and is connected with themby an interdependent relationship. The theoreticalknowledge obtained by bibliology, library science, doc-ument study, archive study, and other specialized disci-

plines, should be used by documentology to make gen-eralizations, and general categories produced by meta-theory should strengthen the cognitive potential ofspecialized disciplines. The explication of the interdis-ciplinary category of a document (see section II) clearlydemonstrates this dependency. Clearly, the develop-ment of a general definition of document, which wouldcorrespond to the status of an interdisciplinary theory,can’t be the problem of any specialized theory of docu-ment study. It is a problem for metatheory (generalizingtheory). At the same time, all specialized theories ofdocument study require the basis of the general conceptof a document. However, the conceptual and termino-logical function, which means treatment of contents ofinterdisciplinary categories used as basis for co-coordi-nating terminological systems of certain sciences, isonly one of the epistemological functions of metathe-ory in the generalized series of scientific disciplines.Documentology as a metatheory has other epistemo-logical functions. Here are the characteristics of somefunctions.

The function of scientific integration is the trans-fer of generalized knowledge from one particular disci-pline to another in order to discover general fundamen-tal principles and patterns of studied objects. Thedemand for scientific integration and coordination ofconceptual and terminological apparatus becomesobvious if we turn to the contents of modern bibliology.Literary philosophers, with M.N. Kufaev (1888–1948)being the first Russian representative, have consideredSumerian clay tables, birch bark charters fromNovgorod, and “accounting tables” created in3200 B.C. as books for a long time. The following clas-sical quote of Kufaev dates back to 1921: “The mostcorrect understanding of a book is the container of anythought or word expressed by a visible sign (italics sup-plied), everything that could possess the form and char-acter of a book in the narrowest sense under the condi-tion of some technical transformation. Such an under-standing of the concept of a book is the inevitable resultof observing and studying a great amount of informa-tion, which expresses thoughts and words and is per-ceived by our eyesight as written or printed. Assyriancuneiform, or a Latin scroll, or a modern folio, or bro-chure, or placard—all of these are books” [45]. In fact,this quote characterizes the conformity ofM.N. Kufaev’s ideas with the ones of P. Otlet, althoughKufaev used the habitual bibliological vocabulary ofthe 1920s instead of the neologism “document.” Buteven at the end of the twentieth century, native bibliol-ogists didn’t resolve to identify a “document” with a“book,” in spite of the practically coinciding interpreta-tions of these terms in the “Book” encyclopedia (Mos-cow, 1998). I was not able to discover differences in themeanings in the following definitions: “historicallyestablished form of registering and transferring diverseinformation in a textual and (or) illustrative form intime and space” (book) and “material medium of data

66

AUTOMATIC DOCUMENTATION AND MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS Vol. 43 No. 2 2009

SOKOLOV

containing information destined for its storage andtransfer in time and space” (document).

However, it may be simply inappropriate to appealto law of identity from formal logic in order to considerthe relationship between a “book” and a “document.”We shouldn’t ignore the fact that a book was a sacredobject of worship at the time of the spiritual epistemeand a symbol and instrument of culture in the period ofthe educational episteme, whereas documents havenever been so honored. Probably, book scrolls andcodes conceal mystical power as V.P. Leonov, headingthe Library of Russian Academy of Sciences, writes inan essay about the book as cosmic subject [46]. Basedon the thesis that the appearance of humans in the uni-verse was not accidental, as well as the appearance oftheir permanent companion, i.e., the book, Leonov con-cludes that “humans and books represent cosmic sub-jects” and “if a book is a cosmic subject, then it isimmortal.” Referring to V.I. Vernadskii, Pierre de Char-din, N.N. Moiseev, and, finally, N.F. Fedorov, ValeriiPetrovich states that humans are the necessary elementof cosmic processes of the universe. The mission ofhumanity is to reach a “progressive victory of spiritover matter,” and the mission of a book is “to influencethe human consciousness and develop his thinking” byinclusion in “the world of objective knowledge” postu-lated by Karl Popper. Humanity can’t accomplish itscosmic mission without the basis of objective knowl-edge; therefore, in V.P. Leonov’s consideration “thesolution of the book’s origination is to be found in thehuman genetic code.” The essay finishes with a call fora “new type of bibliognost and bibliologist resemblingthe theoretician and scientist in his views and aestheticand scientific criteria.” What a fascinating prospect forRussian cosmism, academic genetics, and bibliologicaltheory! A prospect that pragmatic document research-ers can’t even dream about. I suppose that the cosmictheory of the Book can be solved only by means of met-atheoretical document study.

The methodological function of documentology asa metatheory is, firstly, to determine the position of thedocument communication discipline complex withinthe system of scientific knowledge; secondly, to specifythe object, subject matter, boundaries and conditions ofapplicability for first-degree theories.

The solution of the first problem is connected withthe determination of the “document” category relation-ship to conceptually allied interdisciplinary categories,such as “signs” or “symbols.” Semiotics (the generaltheory of signs) represents the metatheory of linguisticdisciplines studying verbal and non-verbal communica-tion and, therefore, is closely related with documentol-ogy, as an elder sister, so to speak. It’s not accidentalthat the general definition of a document includes anindication of the “sign form” of the majority of docu-ment messages. Symbolism, which is the theory ofsymbols, can be called the brother of semiotics anddocumentology.

If we consider a sign as an “object used to replaceand represent another object (property or relation) andalso to store, process, and transfer messages” or “anindissoluble unity of directly perceived (significant)and implied and understood (signified)” [47, p. 239],then it can be referred to as a document of a specialtype. A symbol is interpreted as a social and culturalsign, whose content represents a concept (idea) com-prehended intuitively and not expressed adequately inverbal descriptions. A detailed study of the mysticalnature of symbols was undertaken by A.F. Losev in hisbook Problems of symbols and realistic art, in which anextensive bibliography of Russian and foreign literatureon symbolism is presented (Moscow, 1995, pp. 273–320). Since a symbol is a sort of sign “whose conceptincludes an artistic image or allegory or simile withoutbeing assimilated” [47, p. 613], then it represents somesort of document as well. In any case, a book, inter-preted by V.P. Leonov as a “cosmic subject” undoubt-edly represents a symbol. Documentologists can findfood for thought here.

The problem of co-coordinating the epistemologicalbases of particular disciplines of the document commu-nication complex arises, because all disciplines of doc-ument communication complex have the same object ofstudy, which is historically established document com-munication. This is true even for such dissimilar disci-plines as the patent branch and incunabulum study. Dis-ciplines differ in subjects representing different aspectsof the consideration of a common object as a whole.Delimitation of these subjects is possible only from theoutside, but not from the inside.

Other important functions of the metatheory of doc-ument communication can be mentioned. They includethe professional and ideological function, becausehigh-quality training of specialists in social communi-cation is impossible today without referring to docu-mentology. Panoramic problem vision is necessary forcommunication systems managers, and therefore weacquire the metatheoretic strategic orientation func-tion. However, the essentials have already been pre-sented.

CONCLUSION: GUIDING MILESTONES

The current paper is not a report on work that wascarried out, but a methodological essay, an invitationfor further work, more precisely, an invitation for a vir-tual journey. I consider methodology as the route forcurious researcher. A methodologist is unable to predictthe adventures that a traveler has to face and whatremarkable sights he will discover. The maximum thata methodologist is capable of is pointing the directionand setting several landmarks and guiding milestonesworthy of notice. To summarize this epistemologicalexcursus, I resolve to call two landmarks, two direc-tions of further research: firstly, possible contensivestructure of documentology; secondly, pivotal prob-



lems of modern document communication science andpractice.

1. The contensive structure of documentologyseems to me to be an aggregate of following sections:

• The structure of the document communicationcomplex of sciences. The concept of documentology asmetatheory of the complex. The position of the com-plex within the system of scientific knowledge.

• Explication of the interdisciplinary categories of“document communication systems” (DOCS) and“documents,” and their social functions and typologies.

• The evolution of document communication and itsstages (epistemes). The relation of the technologicalaspect with the spiritual and cultural ones.

• The epistemology of the document and the docu-ment communication system. The methodology of doc-umentology as a metatheory.

• Prospects for the development of documentology.The urgent problems of document communicationrequiring metatheoretical comprehension.

2. Pivotal scientific and practical problems. Thenecessity of the metatheoretical approach is determinedby the complexity of scientific and practical problemsfacing document communication in the period of theinformational episteme. In my consideration, here arethree problems of strategic importance that requiremobilization of all resources of document communica-tion sciences.

• Dysfunction of reading is crucial problem of docu-mentology (dysfunction means failure or disorder ofthe normal situation). A group of sociologists who havestudied reading in Russia since the early 1990s (headedby S.N. Plotnikov) categorized the population of thecountry into four groups: (a) people who read almostpermanently—about 20%; (b) people who read two ormore books a month—25%; (c) people who read one ortwo books in half a year—35%; (d) people who don’tread at all—more than 20% [48, pp. 49–55]. It was dis-covered that a significant part of “intelligent” Russiansisn’t eager to read. Only one third of the people with ahigher education read constantly, one third of the peo-ple read two or more books a month, and the others feelcomfortable without literature. Among all fiction publi-cations, entertaining genres are preferred, includingdetective stories, fantasy, and adventure. Finally,researchers came to the following conclusion: “Inrecent years, the main trend is that reading is losing itsexceptional role in Russian society and turning into asource of required information on the one hand, and amethod of entertainment on the other hand, as happenswith mass reading in other countries” [48, p. 192]. Thedata published by sociologists in the 2000s support thisconclusion [49].

• Today, humanity has come to a crossroads of com-munication channels. Information science technocratsand serious culturologists interpret literaturocentrismas a memorable, but not real period in the history of the

Russian culture and intelligentsia. The literary super-system is undergoing a crisis and is unlikely to reach itsprevious greatness; against the background of globalinformatization and computerization, literary commu-nication looks like a noncompetitive anachronism. Infact, why should people ride horses when they havecars? Why should they need textbooks when they havethe Internet? Why should they need books, whentomorrow artificial intelligence will work for us? Dueto democracy and the accessibility of electronic com-munication channels, modern society is offered animmense variety of business, scientific, political, artis-tic, and other information, excluding the monopoly orany “centrism” in the area of social communication.The era of “communicational decentralization” hascome, which undoubtedly requires metatheoreticalcomprehension.

• The epistemologists of today actively discuss theproblems of humanism and social communication [50].The establishment of the humanistic ideals of liberty,tolerance, social justice, and the creative self-realiza-tion of a person in social consciousness is the mostcomplicated and most important cause for Russia,because it is the only way to overcome the spiritual,cultural, and social crisis that the country is undergo-ing. This way supposes using all the communicationchannels available in the informational episteme; how-ever it is document communication, storing the human-istic heritage of many centuries that, beyond any doubt,can really become the central highway of humanisticvalues. Is documentology capable of responding effec-tively to the challenges of humanism? To achieve suchpower, it has to develop as a humanitarian, or more pre-cisely, humanistic metatheory, rather than a techno-cratic one.

REFERENCES

1. Stolyarov Yu.N., Bibliotekovedenie, bibliografovedenie iknigovedenie kak edinaya nauchnaya spetsialnost': Kurslektsii (Library Science, Bibliographology, and Bibliol-ogy as Unified Scientific Speciality: Course of Lectures),Orel, 2008.

2. Sorokin P.A., Social and Cultural Dynamics, SaintPetersburg, 2000, pp. 40−64.

3. Teoriya kul’tury: Ucheb. posobie (The Theory of Cul-ture: Textbook), Ikonnikova, S.N. and Bol’shakov, V.P.,Eds., Saint Petersburg, 2008, p. 240.

4. Bray W., Trump D., A Dictionary of Archaeology, n.p.:Allen Lane, 1970.

5. Matyushin G.N., Arkheologicheskii slovar' (A Dictio-nary of Archaeology), Moscow, 1996, p. 110.

6. Vladimirov L.I., Vseobshchaya istoriya knigi (GeneralHistory of Book), Moscow, 1988, pp. 8−11.

7. Gelb I.J., A Study of Writing: The Foundations of Gram-matology, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1952.

8. Pleshkevich E.A., Obshchaya teoriya dokumenta (Gen-eral Theory of Document), Saratov, 2005, p. 71.

68


SOKOLOV

9. Okladnikov A.P., Utro iskusstva (The Dawn of Arts),Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1967.

10. Rannie formy iskusstva: Sb. statei (Early Forms of Arts:The Collection of Articles), Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972.

11. Stolyar A.D., Proiskhozhdenie pervobytnogo iskusstva(The Origination of Primitive Art), Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1985.

12. Istrin V.A., Vozniknovenie i razvitie pis’ma (The Appear-ance and Development of Writing), Moscow: Nauka, 1965.

13. Kondrat’ev A.M., Kniga o bukve (The Book about Let-ter), Moscow: Sov. Rossiya, 1975.

14. Friedrich I., The History of Writing, n.p., n.d.

15. Pavlenko N.A., Istoriya pis’ma: Ucheb. posobie (TheHistory of Writing: Textbook), Minsk, 1987.

16. Zelinskii F.F., Istoriya antichnoi kul’tury (The History ofAntic Culture), Saint Petersburg, 1995, p. 38.

17. Stolyarov Yu.N., Prophet and Thinker of Planetary Sig-nificance. About Paul Otlet and His Views Trudy po bib-liotekovedeniyu (Works on Library Science), Stolyarov,Yu.N., Ed., Moscow: Libereya, 2002, p. 12.

18. McLuhan M., Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typo-graphic Man, Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1962.

19. Philosophy, Encyclopedia, or a systematic dictionary ofthe sciences, arts, and crafts, Diderot, D. and d’Alem-bert, J., Eds., France, n.d.

20. Stolyarov Yu.N., Dokumentnyi resurs (DocumentResource), Moscow: Libereya, 2001.

21. Otlet. P., Trudy po bibliotekovedeniyu (Works on LibraryScience), Stolyarov, Yu.N., Ed., Moscow: Libereya, 2002.

22. Otlet P., Biblioteka, bibliografiya, dokumentatsiya:izbrannye trudy pionera informatiki (Library, Bibliogra-phy, and Documentation: Selected Works of Pioneer ofInformatics), Moscow: FAIR-PRESS, 2004.

23. Elektronnye dokumenty: sozdanie i ispol’zovanie v pub-lichnykh bibliotekakh: Spravochnik (Electronic Docu-ments: Creation and Use in Public Libraries: Reference-Book), Saint Petersburg, 2007, pp. 18−39.

24. Maistrovich T.V., Elektronnyi document v biblioteke:Nauch.-metod. posobie (Electronic Document inLibrary: Guidance), Moscow: Libereya-Bibinform,2007.

25. Semiletov S.I., Electronic Document as the Product ofTechnological Documentation of Information and theObject of Legal Regulation, Gosudarstvo I pravo, 2003,no. 1, p. 97.

26. Pleshkevich E.A., General Theory of Document, Doc-toral (Pedagogics) Dissertation, Krasnodar, 2009.

27. Kondakov N.I., Logicheskii slovar’ (A Dictionary ofLogic), Moscow, 1971, p. 602.

28. Stolyarov Yu.N., Document as Conventional Concept(for Academic Arguement), Deloproizvodstvo, 2005,no. 4, pp. 11−24.

29. Shvetsova-Vodka G.N., Definition of Document in Doc-umentation Information Science, Preprint of BAN USSR,Leningrad, 1991.

30. Shvetsova-Vodka G.N., In Addition to the Discussion onDefinition of Document, NTI Ser. 1, 2007, no. 8, pp. 1−6.

31. Terminologicheskii slovnik po teorii I praktike nauchnoiinformatsii (Terminological Glossary on Theory andPractice of Scientific Information), Moscow: VINITI,1964, p. 44.

32. Gel’man-Vinogradov K.B., Spatial Odyssey of Docu-ments as Global Phenomenon, Otechestvennye arkhivy,1992, no. 6, p. 25.

33. Lar’kov N.S., Dokumentovedenie: Ucheb. posobie(Document Study: Textbook for Tomsk State Univer-sity), Moscow, 2006, p. 48.

34. GOST (State Standard) R 51141-98: Record-Keepingand Archive Science. Terms and Definitions, Moscow, 1998.

35. Morgenshtern I.G., Document: Information and/orMedium?, Nauch. i techn. b-ki, 2003, no. 2, pp. 126−127.

36. Zemskov A.I., Document Study in Past, Present, andFuture (Observation of Foreign Publications), Nauch. itechn. b-ki, 2006, no. 7, p. 66.

37. Stolyarov Yu.N., Document Relativity Theory, Nauch. itechn. b-ki, 2006, no. 7, pp. 73−78.

38. Pleshkevich E.A., Osnovy obshchei teorii dokumenta(Fundamentals of General Theory of Document), Sara-tov, 2005, p. 95.

39. Gilyarevskii R.S., Razvitie printsipov knigoopisaniya:kratkii ocherk (The Development of Book DescriptionPrinciples: Brief Essay), Saint Petersburg, 2008,pp. 47−106.

40. Shamurin E.I., Ocherki po istorii bibliotechno-bib-liograficheskoi klassifikatsii (Essays on Library and Bib-liographic Classification), Moscow, 1959, vol. 2,pp. 170−213.

41. Eidel’man B.Yu., Bibliotechnaya klassifikatsiya isistematicheskii catalog: Ucheb. posobie (Library Clas-sification and Systematic Catalogue: Textbook), Mos-cow, 1977, pp. 100−107.

42. Gel’man-Vinogradov K.B., About Complexities in Inter-pretation of Concept of “Document” and Ways of Over-coming Them, Deloproizvodstvo, 2005, no. 2, pp.16−24.

43. Vorob’ev G.G., Dokument: informatsionnyi analiz (Doc-ument: The Information Analysis), Moscow: Nauka, 1973.

44. Stolyarov Yu.N., The Struggle for Scientific Truth ratherthan a Place in the Sun, Bibliografiya, 2007, no. 2, p. 56.

45. Kufaev M.N., Problemy filosofii knigi. Kniga v protsesseobshcheniya (Problems of Literary Philosophy. Book in theProcess of Communication), Moscow, 2004, pp. 61−62.

46. Leonov V.P., Book as Cosmic Subject, Bibliotekovede-nie, 2006, no. 6, pp. 18−21.

47. Sovremennyi filosofskii slovar’ (Modern Dictionary ofPhylosophy), Kemerov, V.E., Ed., Moscow, 2004.

48. Homo legens. Pamyati Sergeya Nikolaevicha Plotnikova(1929-1995) (Homo Legens. In Memory of SergeiNikolaevich Plotnikov (1929−1995)), Moscow, 1999.

49. Chitayushchii mir i mir chteniya: Sb. statei (ReadingWorld and World of Reading: The Collection of Arti-cles), Moscow: Rudomino, 2003.

50. Lektorskii V.A., Epistemologiya klassicheskaya i neklas-sicheskaya (Classical and Non-Classical Epistemology),Moscow, 2006, pp. 13−37.

Article Espistemology

Documents

Transcript of Article Espistemology