As noted in the previous section, existing subject guides and resource listings, for toxicology, as well as for other subject areas, make use of a variety of schemes and frameworks for categorising resources, and thereby giving structure to the list.
Since the list is to be created and maintained in digital form, it m ight be argued that ch o ice of a framework is not so crucial, since the electronic form at means that
multiple frameworks could be m aintained, and resources selected post hoc, by w hatever criteria seemed appropriate. However, this would be to miss the main point of the establishment and use of such a framework. It acts as an intellectual aid to the creator of the listing, in helping to impose structure and context on the mass of
material likely to be encountered during the com pilation of the list, thereby helping to ensure consistency, elimination of duplicates, b alance and com m on sense in the ch oice of material. As will be seen, if a framework based on type of material is chosen, it acts as an aid to the compiler, in enabling a 'ca sca d e ' style of resource identification. Subsequently, a suitable framework should also serve as an aid to the user of the list, acting as a guide to the nature, and inter-relations, of w h at is
provided. This is not to say that supplementary access points to the main framework ca n n o t be provided for convenience, but this does not d e tra ct from the necessity of the main context-setting framework.
There are four forms of general framework categorisation, excepting those,
exemplified above by Gibson and M eade, which are Internet specific, which ap p e a r feasible for the toxicology list to be used in this thesis:
• by subject • by form at • by location
• by type of material
The first of these, a subject categorisation, in this case dividing material by specific type of toxicology, is com m only used for subject guides, including some in the toxicology area. Indication of subject is obviously essential, but this form of
categorisation is not suitable as a main framework for this list. For one thing, many resources cover multiple subjects, leading to duplication in listing, and possible confusion. More importantly, a primary breakdown by subject would bring together very diverse forms of information, and would be less than helpful to the user of a list of this sort, while it m ight well be appropriate for a list involving only a single form at of information, e.g. online databases, or printed journals.
The second form of framework is one based on form at of information: printed book, online bibliographic database, w e b pag e etc. While this is a useful elem ent of information to have in the description of each resource, it is not suitable as the primary framework. For one thing, some resources exist in several forms - e.g. Index Medicus / Medline exists in print, online, and CD-ROM, leading to duplication. For
another, it would be rare for a user to look for specific formats, unqualified by other considerations.
The third form of categorisation divides resources in the list a ccording to country, or p la ce of origin. This is done, to some extent, in Wexler's 1988 listing of toxicology resources, and also features in his more recent edition of the book. There is some justification for this in the case of legislative and regulatory aspects of toxicology, which m ay well differ from country to country. Overall, however, categorisation of resources by location does not help us understand the context of resources within the discipline.
This leaves the fourth type of framework, in which resources are initially categorised a cco rd in g to their type. This seems plausible for a list which is intended to serve as a snapshot of the toxicology discipline, since it promotes an understanding of the com m unication process, and indicates w hat sort of information items may be available. It leaves open the question of exactly how the categories will be defined.
An a d a p ta tio n of a 'traditional' library/information framework, based on structure of literature, particularly scientific literature, is derived for the toxicology listing in this case. Resources are divided into primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories, essentially according to their distance along the com m unication chain from the original 'raw ' information. A particularly clear and full description of this sort of categorisation is given by Grogan (1970). A daptation is necessary because this m odel was intended for a system of publication based purely on printed products. Limited m odification co p e d with the inclusion of compuferised sources, e.g.
m achine-readable abstracting and indexing services, but the arrival of the new forms of information product require the model to be extended further. Nonetheless it is notew orthy that this relatively elderly model still serves very well in helping to clarify the allegedly ch a o tic system of (largely networked) information of the present time. Under the a d a p ta tio n of this system, resources may be categorised as shown in table 3.1. It must be noted that the categorisation is not intended to be absolute; rather it is derived from consideration of com m unication within toxicology.
Table 3.1 Framework for resource categorisation
Primary: the original information, in w hatever form it takes
case reports
co m p a n y reports, financial da ta
course notes, interactive training materials, syllabi conference proceedings
d a ta tabulations diaries, w e b diaries journal articles
m edia reports
m em oranda, letters, e-mail messages, postings to newsgroups, text messages notebooks
organisations’ and individuals' websites (n.b. organisations per se are classed as 3' resources)
patents preprints
regulations and legislation reports
standards
technical manuals theses, dissertations
trade and product information
Secondary: ‘worked over’ knowledge, which organises the primary material in some w ay
classification schemes
d a ta compilations, reference works, handbooks, encyclopaedias dictionaries, glossaries, thesauri
tags (frequently asked questions)
indexing and abstracting services, online databases, databanks monographs, textbooks, treatises
pharm acopias, formularies
Tertiary: rather diverse sources, which aid the use of information resources a t all levels; typically they do not carry ‘subject’ information at all, and m ay not be subject
specific
a c a d e m ic and research deparfmenfs associations and societies
bibliographies and reading lists (generally refer to printed matter) course listings
directories
Internet directories, subject gateways, virtual libraries (all are categorised) Internet search engines
library catalogues
libraries and information services
lists of abstracting and indexing services lists of mailing lists
lists o f newsgroups
lists of research in progress lisfs of expertise
literature guides (annotated descriptions of printed and network resources) online hosts, lists of databases and searchable sites
periodical location lists
portals (offer a mix of subject related services)
resource lists, recom m ended or core resources (list any subject related resources, not just articles)
webliographies (list of w e b resources) webrings
yearbooks
Quaternary: list other listings, may also list other 'lists of lists'. Can be both subject specific and of a general nature.
bibliographies of bibliographies guides to libraries/catalogues lists of lists
lists of organisations
N.B. There is a further, zeroth order, of information; the 'raw' d a ta which comes from laboratory instruments: however, although this can now be readily captured, stored and transmitted elsewhere, it is not truly an information resource until it has been organised and described so as to understandable in ‘public, or formal use', a t which stage it can be regarded as primary information.