Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Paul Otlet and Henri LaFontaine of Belgium initiated the compilation of an index to all recorded knowledge. Instead of an alphabetical file, they decided to adopt a classified arrangement. For the basis of such an arrangement, they turned to the Dewey Decimal Classification, a system which was gaining wide acceptance in American libraries. With permission secured from Melvil Dewey to expand the system to include details required for an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine began developing what was to become the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). Following the establishment of the Institut International de Bibliographie (IIB), later the Fédération Internationale de Documentation (FID), in 1895, work an the universal index and the classification scheme proceeded under its aegis. In 1905, the classification scheme was published as the Manuel du Répertoire bibliographique universel. While the initial, ambitious project of the universal index was abandoned, the classification scheme itself was widely adopted, particularly in special libraries in Europe. A second edition was published in 1927-1933 under the title Classification décimale universelle. The development and maintanance of the scheme continued with the support of the FID. In the course of its development, the UDC moved further and further away from its prototype, the Dewey Decimal Classification. One of the major differences between the two systems is the use of relators in UDC. The notation adopted by Melvil Dewey for his scheme is a hierarchical one; in other words, the notation reflects the hierarchical relationships among subjects. However, it does not display the relationships among the facets, or aspects, of a particular subject. Furthermore, the use of auxiliaries in the Dewey Decimal Classification, beginning with the form subdivisions and gradually expanding to include geographic subdivisions and finally other auxiliaries in the most recent editions, has been relatively restricted. As an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine felt that their system needed commonly applicable auxiliaries which they called "determinatives."` To this end, a series of special symbols were introduced into the system for the purpose of combining related subjects and indicating different facets or aspects of the main subject. The use of these symbols, called relators, with the auxiliaries has rendered the Universal Decimal Classification a synthetic scheme. In this respect, the UDC has moved much more rapidly than the Dewey Decimal Classification toward becoming a faceted classification. In the following paper, Henry V. Hopwood, a Senior Assistant at the British Patent Office Library during the 1900s, explains the use and rationale of relators, or "marks," as he calls them, in the Universal Decimal Classification.