Believe me, I understand. We use the classification to create a single,
classified shelf order -- which is absurd. There are two major problems
(and undoubtedly a number of minor ones)
1) it treats complex thought units (aka books) as if they have one and
only one topic. This means that while it keeps some books together that
should be together, it also separates some books that should be together.
2) users are never given a chance to find out what the class numbers
mean. I do an example of this in my talk on classification [1]. They
don't know when they've gone from general books on a topic to specific
ones, or even when they've moved on to a different topic. (Which happens
in LCC because the enumeration scheme is not hierarchical.)
The shelf order isn't the problem. The problem is that's the ONLY use we
make of classification -- we don't provide meaningful navigation, we
don't have "see also" links for books that could reasonably be in more
than one place. It's probably the worst return on investment in the
library arena, and yet the one that could distinguish libraries from
search engines in the most dramatic way. We should be making more use of
this giant "topic map" that we have created.
kc
[1] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/kcClassn.pdf
On 11/19/12 5:38 AM, Mitchell, Michael wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:08 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Video of "Think Different"
>
> [...]Libraries do classify their works, but unfortunately we classify only to determine shelf order. I'd like to see experiments with classification as navigation.[...]
> Karen Coyle
> =================================================================
>
> No we don't. We classify for topical collocation. We may use classification numbers as part of a shelving scheme but that is not the main purpose of classification. If it was we would just use accession numbers.
>
> It concerns me that people who don't understand current cataloging theory and practice are purporting to be the experts best suited to devise the next-gen cataloging.
>
>
> Michael Mitchell
> Technical Services Librarian
> Brazosport College
> Lake Jackson, TX
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Mon Nov 19 2012 - 10:20:46 EST