ASI21607.tex 27/8/2011 11: 30 Page 1 Facing Interfaces: Paul Otlet���s Visualizations of Data Integration Charles van den Heuvel Huygens ING Institute, P.O. Box 90754, NL-2509 LT Den Haag, The Netherlands. E-mail: charles.van.den.heuvel@huygensinstituut.knaw.nl W. Boyd Rayward School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. E-mail: wrayward@illinois.edu The arbitrary division into lines and pages of the book in its present format, does not correspond at all, with the presentation of ideas. (Otlet, 1911, p. 291) Most historical explanations of interfaces are techno- logical and start with the computer age. We propose a different approach by focusing on the history of library and information sciences,particularly on the case of Paul Otlet (1868���1944). Otlet���s attempts to integrate and dis- tribute knowledge imply the need for interfaces, and his conceptualizations are reminiscent of modern versions of interfaces that are intended to facilitate manual and mechanical data integration and enrichment. Our dis- cussion is based on a selection from the hundreds of images of what we may think of as ���interfaces��� that Otlet made or commissioned during his life. We examine his designs for interfaces that involve bibliographic cards, that allow data enrichment,his attempts to visualize inter- faces between the sciences and between universal and personal classifications, and even his attempts to cre- ate interfaces to the world. In particular, we focus on the implications of Otlet���s dissection of the organization of the book for the creation of interfaces to a new order of public knowledge. Our view is that the creative ways in which he faces tensions of scalability, representa- tion, and perception of relationships between knowledge objects might be of interest today. Interfaces Seen From a Historical Perspective: Introduction Most people probably think of computers when reading the term interface, but the term was already in use in 1882 (Merriam-Webster, Interface). In the traditional sense, an Received May 16, 2011 revised June 19, 2011 accepted June 20, 2011 �� 2011 ASIS&T ��� Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.21607 interface is a surface forming a common boundary between objects or phases. In the computer era, the term interface has increasingly been used to indicate places where independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other, such as in the case of human���computer inter- action (Wikipedia, Interface). Given the enormous variety in computer interfaces���graphical user, web-based user, com- mand line, tactile, tangible user, text user, object-oriented user, batch, zero-input, and so on���the world of interfaces seems fragmented and the interrelations of the various kinds of interfaces not always clear. This is a preliminary attempt to shed some light on the problem of interfaces as a historical phenomenon. There have been few historical studies of interfaces. As with histories of the World Wide Web, historical accounts often start with Vannevar Bush (1890���1974). After a brief note on his famous article ���As We May Think��� (1945), and the Memex, these histories follow the emergence of three types of interfaces in a more or less chronological line: the batch interface (1945���1968), the command-line user inter- face (1969���present), and the graphical user interface. When this last interface was introduced is not clear. A much quoted account, ���Brief History of User Interfaces,��� puts it in 1981 (Raymond & Landley, 2004). Several authors saw its origins in a device to manipulate visible objects on the screen, the Sketchpad that Ivan Sunderland developed in 1963 as part of his MIT doctoral thesis (Myers, 1998). Others chose dif- ferent devices as representing the birth of the interface, such as Engelbart���s mouse of the same year or DATAR, a system that Tom Cranston developed in 1949 for the Canadian Navy to marry radar to digital computers (Akass, 2001 Reimer, 2005).All these historical explanations are technological and start with the computer age. We propose a different approach byfocusingonthehistoryoflibraryandinformationsciences, particularly on the case of Paul Otlet (1868���1944). JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ASI21607.tex 27/8/2011 11: 30 Page 2 Systematically in his late publications Trait�� de Docu- mentation . . . (1934) and Monde. Essai del���Universalisme (1935), and more episodically in various earlier papers, Otlet discussed various modes of integrating and distribut- ing knowledge that imply the need for mechanisms that we now recognize as similar to various current types of interface. Our discussion is based on the analysis of a selec- tion from the hundreds of visualizations of what we may think of as ���interfaces��� that Otlet made or commissioned in the period of the late 1930s until his death in 1944. These documents are kept in the Archives of the Munda- neum in Mons, Belgium. We will examine his designs for interfaces that involve bibliographic cards, his images of interfaces that allow mechanical and manual enrichment of data, his attempts to visualize interfaces between the sciences and between universal and personal classifications, and even his attempts to create interfaces to the world. In particular, we will focus on the implications of Otlet���s dissection of the organization of the book for the creation of interfaces to a new order of knowledge. As early as 1908, Otlet described this as an ���architecture of ideas��� (as cited in Otlet, 1909, p. 19) and, in 1911, as enabling the creation of ���machines to think with��� (p. 292 also see Outlet, 1934, p. 100). Our view is that the enormous number of images of what were effectively interfaces that Otlet created in trying to visually get a grip on problems of scalability, representation, and perception of relationships between classes of knowledge objects might be of interest today. We suggest that he can been seen as strug- gling to conceptualize ideas about interfaces that anticipate modern versions that are intended to facilitate manual and mechanical data integration and enrichment.1 From Books to Data (Perceptions of Reality and Documents) For written works, a re-arrangement of their contents not along the lines of the special plan of a particular book, but according to the genus and species appropriate to each element does not make for any loss of substance. (Otlet, 1891���1892, p. 17) Note that Otlet did not use the term interface. Necessarily, however, the processes of dissecting and reassembling and communicating the substantive content of books, graphic, and other information carriers that Otlet described as the basis of a new kind of knowledge organization required interfaces. This is suggested most generally in the image in Figure 1. The image captures the general problem for him of represent- ing interconnections or interrelationships of what he presents as elements of knowledge generation and communication. It suggests the complexity of the interface issues with which he wrestled and the difficulties that were created for him of not having available the kinds of digital communications 1For related discussion of aspects of the nature and use of images by Otlet, especially in relation to developments in modern information and communication technologies, see Van Acker, 2009a, b, 2010 Heuvel, 2008, 2009, 2010 Rayward, 1990, 1994, 1997, 2010a, 2010b. FIG. 1. ���Bibliology-Documentation-Museography������Expression as a double interface between processes of documentation and of thought [June 8, 1937] (Mons, Mundaneum, EUM 8435��). technologies���along with the concepts of interface that they involve���that we can so easily draw upon today. In this image Otlet depicts the abstract world of A. real- ity, B. Thought and C. Knowledge, represented by dotted lines, as involving six kinds of physical elements, represented by bold lines (1. Text, 2. Formulas, 3. Charts and Tables, 4. Images, 5. Schematic Representations such as diagrams and 6. Objects). By means of Expression in Documentary or what he calls ���Bibliogical��� formats these elements become the basis for six kinds of physical collections (1. Books ��� publications,2.Encyclopediasintheformofatlasesorcollec- tionsofcharts,diagrams,postersandotherkindsofschematic representation, 3. Catalogues or inventories of documents, 4. Exhibitions and demonstrations, 5. Educational materials, 6. Museums). This complex set of relationships is the ultimate basis for the abstract concept of social action (represented by dotted lines). One might explain the image further by say- ing that informed action requires knowledge of reality that is created by thinking. But knowledge cannot become the basis for effective action until it is represented by documen- tary elements. To have any permanent existence these must be expressed in documentary or ���bibliological��� formats that allow them to be assimilated to a range of institutional struc- tures and their different characteristic functions by means of which informed action can be supported over time. In the text accompanying the image Otlet simply says: ���Explanation: 2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DOI: 10.1002/asi