Quoting "Miksa, Shawne" <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU>:
> It is interesting--spent some time last night re-reading the
> Introductions to the 1st edition and the current 22nd edition of DDC.
>
> In the Preface of the 1st edition Dewey wrote "The system was
> devised for cataloguing and indexing purposes, but it was found on
> trial to be equally valuable for numbering and arranging books and
> pamphlets on the shelves." (Dewey, 1876, p3)
And my 1899 version, introduction p. 38, claims that it has been
adopted by Bookstores:
"Experience proves it a profitable thing for a dealer to arrange his
books so that each person may find those in which he is interested
without examining the entire stock."
We've come full circle.
kc
He also says "The
> impossibility of making a satisfactory classification of all
> knowledge as preserved in books, has been appreciated from the
> first, and nothing of the kind attempted" and that "Theoretically,
> the division of every subject into just nine heads is absurd." (p.4)
>
> In the 22nd edition published in 2003 the DDC editors define
> classification and its purpose:
> "2.1 Classification provides a system for organizing
> knowledge. Classification may be used to organize knowledge
> represented in any form, e.g., books, documents, electronic resources.
> 2.2 Notation is the system of symbols used to represent the
> classes in a classification system. In the Dewey Decimal
> Classification, the notation is expressed in Arabic numerals. The
> notation gives both the unique meaning of the class and its relation
> to other classes.The notation provides a universal language to
> identify the class and related classes, regardless of the fact that
> different words or languages may be used to describe the classes."
> (DDC22, vol.1, p
>
> In reading through the entire Introduction there is not one mention
> of using the numbers for physical arrangement of the resources. The
> definition of Call number (Book number) is "a set of letters,
> numerals, or other symbols (in combination or alone) used by a
> library to identify a specific copy of a work. A call number may
> consist of the class number, book number, and other data such as
> date, volume number, copy number, and location symbol." (DDC22, vol.
> 1, p lxvi)
>
> Logically and realistically, we know that the built numbers assigned
> to resources are used for physical arrangement library. But, it is
> important to note the absence of any requirement to do so. This is
> what some libraries have done when moving to other ways of
> arranging, but I would contend their reasons for doing so are
> largely based on this misperception of how DDC works as a
> classification system as well as the following of the "tradition" of
> using the numbers for arrangement (i.e., this is how its always
> been done, no questions asked). This would be a very interesting
> study --a small one for an article, perhaps, or more detailed study
> for a dissertation.
>
> The book "Moving Beyond the Presentation Layer: content and context
> in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System" published in 2006
> by Haworth Press (also as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly,
> volume 42, numbers 3/4), and edited by Joan S. Mitchell and Diane
> Vizine-Goetz, seeks to look beyond the "familiar linear notation
> sequence" and explore how it can be used in web environment. It's a
> great read--I highly recommend it, especially Karen Markey's article
> on use of classification in the online environment.
>
> In looking through several textbooks on classifying with DDC, the
> distinction between the classification number and the addition of a
> book number (sometimes called the cutter number or a "unique
> identifier") is the only real mention of any use for physical
> arrangement on the shelf. Without that addition then arrangement is
> quite difficult. I would be curious to know if libraries that no
> longer use DDC for shelving had been using the whole "book number"
> or just the classification number. I've often observed class numbers
> being randomly "lopped off" to make a shorter notation to fit on
> the spine. On one cringe-worthy occasion I found a number that
> didn't even exist in the schedules--someone had taken the original
> number and rounded it up.
>
> In the survey of catalogers in North Texas public libraries that I
> conducted in 2005-2006, I found that out of 104 respondents
> (representing a 60% response rate) only 33 (32%) used DDC, 22nd
> edition, either daily, weekly, or occasionally; an average of 17
> (16.5%) used the older 21st or 20th editions daily, weekly, or
> occasionally. At the same time, 18 (17%) accessed DDC online through
> WebDewey. 61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I
> feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't understood, at
> least in this neck of the woods, but I would venture to say that a
> national survey would produce similiar findings. (Miksa, S. “A
> Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization.”
> Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, vol. 49,
> no. 2, Spring 2008. )
>
>
> **************************************************************
> Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Library and Information Sciences
> College of Information
> University of North Texas
> email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
> http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
> office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
> **************************************************************
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 18:07:25 EST