Search (74 results, page 2 of 4)

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4348,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper describes the efforts of three national libraries to use the DDC to improve access in German to the national bibliographies of Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The reasons that led to the use of the DDC for the organisation of the bibliographies and the difficulties in adopting a common approach will be explained. The paper will deal with the approach of using the Second Dewey Summary and the adaptations made to suit the bibliographic requirements of each country's bibliography. The presentation will also explain the challenges of incorporating German requirements in the new outline of the different series of the Deutsche Nationalbibliograpfie and will show how these were successfully resolved.

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 1090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=1090,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1090, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Critical race theory is introduced as a potentially useful approach to the evaluation of bibliographic classification schemes. An overview is presented of the essential elements of critical race theory, including clarifications of the meanings of some important terms such as "race" and "social justice." On the basis of a review of existing conceptions of the just and the antiracist library service, a rationale is presented for hypothesizing that critical race theory may be of use to the library and information sciences. The role of classification schemes as information institutions in their own right is established, and the Dewey Decimal Classification is introduced as the case to be studied. The challenges faced by classification-scheme designers in the construction and reconstruction of racerelated categories are reviewed; and an analysis is presented of one sense in which it might be suggested that recent (2003) revisions in one of the DDC's tables appear not to meet those challenges wholly successfully. An account is given of a further sense in which adoption of a critical race-theoretic approach has the more radical effect of calling into question a fundamental decision recently taken to "deracialize" the DDC. In conclusion, an assessment is made of critical race theory as a framework for evaluating library classification schemes.

0.003945538 = product of:
  0.0118366135 = sum of:
    0.0118366135 = product of:
      0.023673227 = sum of:
        0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 6393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023673227 = score(doc=6393,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 6393, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Gives an account of the editing of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) from the full database to produce a brief, simplified version. Describes the selection criteria, difficulties in maintaining consistency and insights gained into optimizing future maintenance of the scheme

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 1129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=1129,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1129, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The first mention of the decimal system of classification in the Russian library literature occured in 1895. Between 1895 and 1907, the system made little headway in Russia. In the few instances in which it was adopted during this period, the form was generally that of the UDC rather than that of the DDC. In 1908, the decimal system began to receive greater attention in Russia, owing in part to the efforts of the bibliographer B.S. Bodnarskii, a UDC proponent. In 1911, a group of St. Petersburg librarians put forward their own scheme of decimal classification for small Russian libaries. In addition to the UDC and the domestic Russian variant, DDC also received some serious attention and appears to have been most popular form in Russia following the revolution of 1917. In early 1921, however, the Russian government issued a decree singling out the UDC as the system of classification to be used in all libraries in Russia

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=704,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=3165,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

The future of classification. Ed. R. Marcella u. A. Maltby

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=4301,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Though several studies have been published on the topic of reclassification of academic library collections over the past eight decades since it first gained popularity, none have explored the preferences of academic library employees toward classification schemes beyond a merely superficial level. The preferences of library employees must serve some role in organizational decision-making. By distributing a mixed-methods survey to academic library employees across the United States, the researchers in the present study provide insight into employee preferences. The findings of the study may provide insight into library trends and the future of library classification schemes.

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 5221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=5221,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5221, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Revision of the DDC is based on the growth or recasting of knowledge that is revealed in a decade of publishing. Revision takes place at the Library of Congress and is guided by several professional committees and the advice of experts. 'Decimal Classification Additions, Notes and Decisions (DC&)' conveys revisions of a minor nature between editions. Separate publications, such as for 004-006 Data Processing and Computer Science, make extensive revisions available between editions

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 2252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=2252,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2252, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Overview of recent developments in the organization and the policy of the UDC. Description of content and compilation of the Master Reference File, the database of the UDC that will be the starting point for future revision and enhancement of the classification. Some observations are added concerning the direction these developments will take

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=63,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The advent of the Internet has intensified problems of classification and nomenclature in a range of disciplines that have been the concern of librarians and scientists for over a century. Biology and Medicine are selected as examples, and the work of specialists both in scientific systematics and taxonomy and in bibliographic classification is examined in order to suggest some solutions to current difficulties in information retrieval

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=3623,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It has been generally recognized that the Library of Congress Classification, developed at the turn of the century, has been based an practical rather than theoreti cal or philosophical considerations. Unlike most of the other library classification systems, which originated from individual minds, the Library of Congress Classification system was the result of corporate efforts. Nonetheless, there were a number of individuals who, in the early stages of its development, provided guidance regarding the general framework and direction of the scheme. The most important among these was Charles Martel (1860-1945) who was Chief Classifier at the Library of Congress when the system was first developed. In a paper read before the New Zealand Library Association in April 1911, from which the following excerpt has been taken, Martel gave his views concerning library classification in general and provided a glimpse of the rationale behind the Library of Congress Classification system in particular. In the following excerpt, Martel discusses the basis of the Library of Congress Classification system to be not "the scientific order of subjects ... [but] rather [a] convenient sequence of the various groups ... of books." This is the "literary warrant" an which the Library of Congress system has been based. With regard to the notation, Martel argues for brevity in preference to symmetry or mnemonics. Brevity of notation has since been recognized as one of the greatest advantages of the Library of Congress system as a device for shelf arrangement of books. Martel outlines seven groupings used in the system for subarranging books an the subject, first by form and then by subject subdivisions. This pattern, known as Martel's "seven points," has served as the general framework in individual classes and provided the most significant unifying factor for individual classes in the system, which contain many unique or disparate characteristics.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=155,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 155, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the changes and trends in the developments and revisions of UDC in the context of a critique made by Neelameghan in 1972 on the need for a theoretical basis for UDC. The impact of Ranganathan's faceted approach as also his General Theory of Classification on the revision of UDC has been explained with illustrations from the recent revisions of UDC with particular emphasis on developments in the last decade.

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=6391,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=3848,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper will look into different patterns of facet analysis used in the UDC schedules and how these affect the scheme presentation, the underlying data structure and the management of the classification scheme. From the very beginning, UDC was designed to represent the universe of knowledge as an integral whole allowing for subjects/concepts from all fields of knowledge to be combined, linked and the nature of their relationships made explicit. In Otlet's original design, the emphasis for his new type of classification was on the coordination of classmarks at the point of searching, i.e., post-coordination, which he firmly rooted in an expressive notational system. While some UDC classes exhibit various patterns of facet analytical theory proper, others, although used in an analytico-synthetic fashion, follow less canonical structural patterns. The authors highlight the lack of connection made throughout the various stages of UDC restructuring between: a) theoretical requirements of an overarching facet analytical theory as a founding principle guiding the construction of schedules; and, b) practical requirements for an analytico-synthetic classification in terms of notational presentation and data structure that enables its use in indexing and retrieval, as well as its management online.

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=2169,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The spread of DDC in the UK can be traced to networking in the 1870s between the librarians of the new municipal free libraries and the American librarians who were promoting new ideas through conferences and associations. Manchester Free Library was particularly influential in the development of the library service in the UK. The first use of DDC seems to have been at Manchester, as a result of networking at the first Conference of Librarians in 1877. This interest in DDC in Manchester therefore significantly contributed to the acceptance of DDC as the standard scheme for UK public libraries. Traditions of networking and cooperation are illustrated in this history - just as they were exemplified by Magda Heiner-Freiling in her project DDC German.

Source

New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=2672,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

African independent churches have in the last four decades grown in number and in membership. They have become Africans' own way of spreading the Word of God. However, despite several years of their existence and the publication of some books on them, the major classification schemes which are widely used in libraries, namely the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Library of Congress Classification, and the Universal Decimal Classification, have no provision for classifying books on them. The paper describes the nature of these churches and observes that they meet the criteria of a Christian church. It suggests how the three classification schems could be revised to make provision for classifying books on the subject

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 3748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=3748,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3748, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the ideas and achievements of Henry E. Bliss concerning his Bliss Classification Scheme (BC), based on material in the Henry E. Bliss Papers at Columbia University, New York. Describes his views on various aspects of classification: its function; arrangements; adaptability; and notation. Discusses the role and qualifications of classification staff. Notes the advantages and disadvantages of standard systems, including: LCC, DDC, and UDC. Explores the origins, evolution, publication, and impact of the original BC and its relationship to the radical revision of the BC, 2nd ed.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=5181,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Nearly 25 years have elapsed since the last comprehensive measure of the percentage of academic libraries that employ the Dewey and Library of Congress systems of classification. To provide updated statistics, the researchers surveyed all 3793 academic libraries via their online catalogs. The findings indicate that the use of Dewey has declined over the past four decades. Teachers' Colleges and Community Colleges in particular have higher rates of Dewey use than large research or professional universities. This information may help support academic library reclassification decisions.

0.0036161449 = product of:
  0.010848435 = sum of:
    0.010848435 = product of:
      0.02169687 = sum of:
        0.02169687 = weight(_text_:of in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02169687 = score(doc=1736,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31669703 = fieldWeight in 1736, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a general overview with up-to-date information on the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) use worldwide. Design/methodology/approach - The research combined e-mail interviews with LIS professionals in 208 countries, literature research and information obtained from UDC distributors/publishers (AENOR, BSI, UDC Consortium). The following categorisation of UDC use was offered: A - dominant system; B - used in some kind of libraries only; or C - rarely used. Findings - The paper finds that, of the 208 countries contacted and researched through the literature in 2004-2006, the UDC was found to be used in 124 (60 per cent) of these. In 34 (28 per cent) of the countries researched (in Europe, Asia and Africa), UDC is the main classification system used across national information networks. In 45 (36 per cent) of the countries it is used in certain kinds of libraries. In the remaining 45 (36 per cent) of the countries it is used rarely, in only a few libraries or information centres. Research limitations/implications - It was beyond the scope of this research to provide any information regarding the actual number of institutions using UDC in a given country or to give an estimate of the size and number of document collections organised by it. Although a decline in UDC use since the 1980s was reported from a number of countries, it was not possible to measure this accurately. Practical implications - The interest shown for using UDC in the organisation of digital collections, information exchange and cross domain and cross collection resource discovery depends on accurate knowledge of its actual usage worldwide. This gives a measure of its global importance and verifies its credentials as an indexing standard. This research, which attempted wider and more systematic coverage than previous surveys, should help clarify the status of UDC and its potential use in the networked environment. Originality/value - The paper provides up-to-date information on the presence of the UDC system across countries and languages.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.2, S.211-228

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 4449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=4449,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4449, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study explores, in 3 steps, how the 3 main library classification systems, the Library of Congress Classification, the Dewey Decimal Classification, and the Universal Decimal Classification, cover human knowledge. First, we mapped the knowledge covered by the 3 systems. We used the "10 Pillars of Knowledge: Map of Human Knowledge," which comprises 10 pillars, as an evaluative model. We mapped all the subject-based classes and subclasses that are part of the first 2 levels of the 3 hierarchical structures. Then, we zoomed into each of the 10 pillars and analyzed how the three systems cover the 10 knowledge domains. Finally, we focused on the 3 library systems. Based on the way each one of them covers the 10 knowledge domains, it is evident that they failed to adequately and systematically present contemporary human knowledge. They are unsystematic and biased, and, at the top 2 levels of the hierarchical structures, they are incomplete.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.877-901