Casey,
One problem with implementing either DDC or LCC or LCSH is that there
are facets that "float" and can be applied throughout the classification
system. For this reason, they don't appear in the actual schedules. So,
for instance, any DDC number can be modified by adding "973" to indicate
that the topic has a facet relating to the U.S. or an addition of ".05"
is for periodicals on the topic preceding the decimal point. So in your
case of "Biographies of works from specific subjects" the facets will
(probably) tell you what the subject is.
LC did develop a MARC format for classifications and has coded LCC in
that, but I fear that the coding doesn't resolve the issues of facets,
just as the LCSH in the authorities format doesn't really help you put
together the subject headings and the various facets that system
contains. We really do need a machine-readable classification, and
undoubtedly one of the reasons why we don't make more use of classified
views is that we don't have this data in a usable machine-readable form.
Project Gutenberg appears to have an 1876 copy of the DDC. I have my own
copy of the 1899 one. (BTW, its class number is 025.4 ;-)) It would be
interesting to figure out which is the latest version that is out of
copyright... if I get a chance I'll look into that. But unfortunately I
fear that anything more than 50 years old will be too far out of date to
be useful.
kc
Casey Durfee wrote:
> Does anybody know of a place where you can get a fairly comprehensive
> list of Dewey (TM) codes and their descriptions that won't get me sued
> by OCLC (R) and might actually be useful to non-librarians? I've been
> experimenting with using Dewey (TM) in our faceted catalog [1] and so
> far it doesn't seem tremendously useful as a way of finding things, at
> least compared to other faceting options available.
>
> Some of the descriptions are helpful but ones like "General principles
> & musical forms" or "Biographies of works from specific subjects" seem
> pretty much useless unless you're a librarian. And I am unclear on
> whether it is even legal to use descriptions like these [2] in a catalog
> without incurring the Almighty Wrath (SM) of OCLC (R).
>
> I remember Tim from LibraryThing was talking a while back about
> creating a "Melvil" or "Dui" classification system based upon an out of
> copyright version of Dewey (TM). Has anybody done any work along these
> lines?
>
>
> --Casey
>
> [1] http://catalog.spl.org/catalog/
> [2] http://www.marcont.org/ontology/marcontddc.rdf
>
> Dewey is a trademark of the Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
> Almighty Wrath is a registered service mark of YHWH.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thu 5/31/2007 4:32 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
>
>
>
> I like this educational component, and I do think that some of this is
> what Burke may be seeking. The problem I see with Dewey as we use it
> today is it is so very linear/one-dimensional that I think many
> persons
> standing before a shelf that is classified in DDC may fail to see the
> connections. Using DDC or LCC to allow users to explore in a
> hypertextual way, so that a book on veterinary medicine could link to
> books on general biology and chemistry, as well as some added "see
> alsos" to pets and careers, would illuminate the interactions between
> the items in the library. In fact, the numbers themselves are not the
> full set of information in either of these classification systems,
> because they do have vocabulary and entry vocabulary, related topics,
> etc., in the schedules that we don't present to the users. And there
> is
> a lot of information in the DDC "facets" that reveal geographical and
> other information that again I don't think is obvious to the user at
> the
> shelf. I guess I'm saying that if you don't know what the numbers mean
> you can still find a book but you can't really understand why it's on
> the shelf it is on. And, yes, there might be some similar books near
> it,
> but similar HOW? Couldn't we do a better job of revealing the
> information in the classification system?
>
> kc
>
> Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> What concerns me the most is that I think there is an educative
>>
> component in Dewey that is being lost.
>
>> It seems to me that the purpose of all libraries, in one sense or
>>
> another, to one degree or another, is to
>
>> -comprehensively take account of...
>>
>> -systematically organize...
>>
>> -and thereby make increasingly accessible / findable...
>>
>> knowledge of the world for the world - and of course doing so in a
>>
> timely manner.
>
>> In addition, I believe *all* of these steps, in fact, help the user
>>
> to learn about the world.
>
>> I think the Dewey system, though imperfect, exemplifies this.
>>
>> Again, LCSH classification and subject headings do the same thing.
>>
> While I think Karen's musings about Prof. Burke's wish list are
> excellent and ought to be pursued with vigor, I wonder if in addition to
> the advantages of LCSH's faceted searching (now finally being exploited
> and appreciated by folks like Andrew Pace, Erik Hatcher, etc.), we have
> considered enough the "guaranteed serendipity" that results when one
> explores the holistic web of interconnectivity and interdisciplinarity
> formed by linked vocabulary-controlled subject headings.
>
>> And bring on the tags as well!
>>
>> Nathan Rinne
>> Media Cataloging Technician
>> ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
>> 11200 93rd Ave. North
>> Maple Grove, MN. 55369
>> Work phone: 763-391-7183
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>>
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Simpson, Sarah
>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:14 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
>>
>> I'm interested in how this works out, too. I am assuming this is a
>>
> small branch of the library. Our cookbook section, for one example)
> takes up an awful lot of real estate - I would hate to be looking for
> one particular book without a good identifier. I am very curious about
> how shelving and paging will work. It's great for browsing, but it
> seems like it will cause difficulties with getting the one book you are
> actually looking for. Still, if the branch is small enough that their
> sections aren't any bigger than those at Borders, it may work well for
> them.
>
>> I'm also curious about labeling/classification - it seems like they
>>
> will still need some sort of system. History books run from 930 to 990
> and take up a LOT of space - here at our Central Library, we have almost
> 12,000 items in the 900s. It seems like someone would have to still
> assign some sort of classification - Russian history, American history
> (still an immense section), and so on. I hope they put something up on
> the Web or publish something so we can get a look at what they are
> doing!
>
>> Sarah Simpson
>> Technical Services Manager
>> Tulsa City-County Library
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>>
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Stephens Owen
>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:02 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
>>
>>
>>
>>> Nathan wrote:
>>> It will be interesting to see if the following incident gives birth
>>>
> to
>
>>> others:
>>>
>>> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0530nodewey0530.html
>>>
>>> --------
>>> There are a couple of things here. Firstly, it seems as if this is a
>>>
> public
>
>>> library. Išve never worked in a public library, so I canšt comment
>>>
> from that
>
>>> side of the counter, but I do use my local public library a lot, and
>>>
> I can
>
>>> safely say that the fact the library uses Dewey is completely
>>>
> irrelevant to
>
>>> me. The collection is too small to need anything more than a cursory
>>>
> system
>
>>> for ordering books on the shelf, and I know the sections I use
>>>
> regularly so
>
>>> well I donšt really need a guide.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ( http://www.kcoyle.net/ )
> <http://www.kcoyle.net/>
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Fri Jun 01 2007 - 15:34:08 EDT