On 2/7/07, Hahn, Harvey <hhahn_at_ahml.info> wrote:
> Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> |The biggest advantage of a hierarchic classification (and Dewey is
> |conceptually better in this regard than LC) over verbal subject
> |indexing is that truncation can very usefully broaden a search. You
> |just cannot grab all the entries for birds in a subject access, but
> |in a Dewey access, you can: 598.
>
> Possibly the primary problem with classification schemes in general is
> that as knowledge and concepts appear, change in importance, and/or
> disappear, the schemes have to be constantly updated. Every issue of
> DDC and updates in between have additions, relocations, and even
> occasional "phoenixes". Am I incorrect in thinking that this could
> raise havoc in classified catalogs?
I have pondered before that it's interesting we don't append some sort
of "version number" to tell us exactly what version of Dewey or LC was
used in creating a number. Given that there usually aren't drastic
changes, I suppose it's never been a huge deal. But adding a "version
number" would seem to me to help make it clear. Of course, then you
need to keep a record of that version around.
Jon Gorman
Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 13:04:32 EST