Classifying the Unknown

At first glance the problem of classifying the unknown may seem unremarkable.

If we use an item shaped as a 'book' for example, we may not know the author or publisher of the given object, but as long as we know it is an object that functions as a book then the description of a reading object could suffice. Yet, if the 'book' was a religious text believed to have been written by an omnipotent being, these unknowns could have a huge bearing on whether the object we have is indeed simply a book, or instead a religious artefact with some primordial relevance. 

There is also a material aspect to this question. If we loosely define a book as a light reflecting object containing pages of human script and/or images for the purpose of reading, how do we classify eBooks and Adobe's portable document format (pdf files) being viewed on the display of an electronic eReader?

The question and our understanding of what type of book it is then becomes relevant.

What to Classify?

Is classifying an object merely a case of identifying its form and function or is it necessary to identify its maker/manufacturer and its material composition? What of the context regarding its usage or location where it was acquired from?

What is Known?

Every object in our collection exists and thus has been made - this is known.

Every object in our collection has been collected and assigned a code using a UCL system of classification - this is known.

Almost every object in our collection is a fragment that has somehow been severed from its originating roots – its ‘personal’ ethnographic story is either incomplete or unknown.

Is this significant?

Should we prioritise the generation of new knowledge or the restoration of old knowledge?