PRECIS

(PRESERVED CONTEXT INDEX SYSTEM)

A. Franco & E. Kangleon

PRECIS
• A system of subject indexing which provides a full
subject statement at each significant point of entry
in the index.
• The context of the terms of a PRECIS is always
preserved and each index entry is co-extensive with
the subject
• The system is an example on the application
of syntactical devises in indexing
PRECIS
• Used natural language description
• Instead of a prescriptive list of terms provides a
model for subject analysis (known as a paradigm) in
each subject area
• The subject matter or the input string must already
be in a “context dependent” sequence.
• Context dependency means that each term in the string
is dependent on the term immediately before it
History
• Development of chain indexing
• DDC lacked adequate level of detail
• Interest in developing a system with human decision-making
and computerized automation
• Designed by Derek Austin (1984)
• 1960‟s: Research for CRG & NATO
• 1970‟s: British Library Bibliographic Services Division
• Used for the subject analysis of material in the British
National Bibliography and British Catalogue of Music from
1984
• COMPASS (which is also terminated in 1996) replaced
PRECIS in 1990.
History
 The British Library compiled an internal thesaurus
for PRECIS-indexing of the British National
Bibliography from 1950-1987
 The PRECIS thesaurus has, unfortunately, never been
available online 
 It is one of the few examples of a wide-ranging
general thesaurus of considerable specificity
PROS and CONS
 Advantages
 Flexibility
 More accurate entries
 Adapt to change more quickly
 Can handle multiple languages

 Computer does part of the work

 Disadvantages
 Requires a massive amount of careful work
 Efficiency is debatable
In Comparison
 Vs. LCSH
 Freedom in assigning subject headings
 Interrelation of the various headings

 Vs. DDC & LCC

 Syntacticalstructure
 Freedom in assigning subject headings
Process
 Examine material
 Make descriptive phrases
 Analyze phrases
 Convert phrase into string
 Determine tags for Terms
 Enter into computer
 Computer makes entries
 Thesaurus maintained
Index Entry
 Two-line, three part format
 First line consists of the „lead and the qualifier’ (heading)
 The lead is the user‟s access point to the index, and the
qualifier provides the broader context
 Second line has the display
 The display shows the terms of the narrower context
 The lead is in boldface and is separated from the
qualifier by a period-plus-space also it must contain at
least one term, but the qualifier or the display may be
empty.
Index Entry

LEAD . QUALIFIER

DISPLAY

Entries of the general type as in above can be can be generated by a

computer in a context dependent sequence. This procedure of
generating the sequence is called shunting.
Index Entry
Example, the subject statement reads:
Management of libraries in India
Entries will be as follows:
Management
Libraries. India
Libraries. Management
India
India. Libraries. Management
Coding
 Task of term categorization is governed by a table
of role operators
 Role operators are the code symbols which show the
functions of the component terms and fix its position in
the string
 Input terms are prefixed by role operators
 Helps in writing the strings in PRECIS
 Serves as an instruction to the computer in
determining the typography, punctuation and
format of the input
Coding
 Primary operators (formerly called mainline operators)
 perform the primary task in syntactical side. It composed of
three sets of concepts:
 Environmental core concepts 0
 Core concepts 1, 2 & 3
 Extra-core concepts 4, 5 & 6

 Secondary operators also have three sets of operators

namely:
 Coordinate concepts f&g
 Dependent elements p, q, & r
 Special Classes of action s, t, & u
Coding
 Other types of codes according to Chowdhury, 1999
 Two sets of primary codes:
 Theme interlink $x, $y & $z
 Term code $a, $b & $c
 Two sets of secondary codes:
 Differences
 Preceding differences $0, $1 & $2, (a third character 1-9 indicates the
level of difference)
 Dates differences $d
 Parenthetical differences $n & $o
 Connectives $v & $w
 Lastly a typographic codes which is used in bringing
typographic form of a given term in the resulting index
entry. ---$f, $g $h & $i
Codes
 0 – location  $c – Proper name
 1 – Key system; object of transitive action; agent  $d – Place name
of intransitive action
 $0 – Non-lead, space generating
 2 – Action; effect of action
 $1 – Non-lead, close up
 3 – Performer of transitive action; intake; factor
 $2 – Lead, space generating
 4 – Viewpoint-as-form
 $3 – Lead, close up
 5 – Selected instance, e. g. study, region, sample
 $n – Non-lead parenthetical difference
population
 $o – Lead parenthetical difference
 6 – Form of document; target user
 $v – Downward reading connective
 f – „Bound‟ coordinate concept
 $w – Upward reading connective
 g – Standard coordinate concept
 $e – Non-filing part in italic preceded by comma
 p – Part; property
 $f – Filing part in italic preceded by comma
 q – Member of quasi-generic group
 $g – Filing part in roman
 r – Assembly
 $h – Filing part in italic preceded by full point
 s – Role definer
 $i – Filing part in italic, no preceding punctuation
 t – Author-attributed association
 u – Two-way interaction
 $x – 1st concept in coordinate theme
 $y – 2nd/ subsequent concept in theme
 $z – common concept
 $a – Common noun
REFERENCES
• Hjørland, B. (2007). PRECIS (Preserved Context Index System). Denmark. http://www.iva.dk/
bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20SYSTEMS/precis.htm, Accessed 15 July 2010.
 Chowdhury, G. G. 1999. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. London : LA pub.
 Portraits in cataloging and classification: Theorist, Educators, and Practioners of the Late
Twentieth century. (1998). Retrieved January 3, 2010, from Google books website:
http://books.google.com.phbooksid?=uM9EZz-
GEfsC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=preserved+context+indexing+system&source=bl&ots=UV
KA5eaPzy&sig=qcOdZilyQ5pp3ryGWvZbIGbGoGE&hl=tl&ei=tLhAS5-8ApDi7A.
 Sharma C. K. & Sharma A. K. (2007). Information Process and Retrieval. Retrieved January 3,
2010, from Google books website:
http://books.google.com.phbooksid?=l7cnWBe1tEoC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=preserved
+context+indexing+system&source=bl&ots=6jrO8QcI5k&sig=TPZO8B0vFCQjcYEwWVTseq8
n1VU&hl=tl&ei=tLhAS5-8ApDi7A
 Lancaster, F. W. 2003. Indexing and Abstracting Theory and Practice. London: Library
Association Publishing.
 Smith, C. (2007). PRECIS (Preserved Context Index System).
http://www.powershow.com/view/67a1-MjRjN/PRECIS_Preserved_Context_Index_System ,
Accessed 15 July 2010.