Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006360204 = product of:
  0.025440816 = sum of:
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

BibliotheekBlad. 2(1998) no.10/11, S.22-24

0.0024970302 = product of:
  0.009988121 = sum of:
    0.009988121 = product of:
      0.039952483 = sum of:
        0.039952483 = weight(_text_:based in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039952483 = score(doc=4702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the events which led the Swedish Library Association (SAB) in 1921 to publish a unique Swedish classification system, the SAB system. Its origin is set in the social context of public library development since 1800 and seen in the light of Bostrom's philosophy of rational idealism. This had consequences for stock and classification practice in parish, workers' and study circle libraries. From 1915, SAB began debating classification at annual meetings and in the committee set up in 1917. Library consultants played a major role in the system's development; ahich was created for librarians, not users. The main reason for creating a unique system seems to have been a desire to find a common tool for stock acquisition and organisation which was based on Swedish practice and would function in the Swedish setting. This might explain why Dewey, based on American public library ideas, was rejected. But the picture is complex and can be differently interpretated

0.0023850764 = product of:
  0.0095403055 = sum of:
    0.0095403055 = product of:
      0.019080611 = sum of:
        0.019080611 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019080611 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2008 17:56:19

0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=1524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

United States libraries use classification to provide subject browsing in open stacks. The DDC used by 85% of American libraries, is a theoretical, universal attempt to organize all knowledge. The LCC lacks intellectual consistency since it was based upon library warrant to organize materials in one collection. Many academic libraries use LCC because the Library of Congress' shared bibliographic records with the LCC call numbers reflect the collecting interests of academic libraries. LCC is more hospitable to change than DDC whoese phoenix schedules have encountered resistance throughout the world. Classification currently receives less attention than subject headings since United States librarians place great hope in the computer to resolve subject heading problems while remaining conservative about classification