Search (44 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 4138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=4138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shelf arrangement, from a bibliographic perspective, constitutes a reading proposal of the collection to the users as well as a resource for management and access to the documents. However, the centrality of the call number testifies the near forgetfulness of the different proposals that came before it and the role of the collection of documents and the target audience in the elaboration of the organization, in addition to the overlapping of the bibliographic classification to shelf arrangement. This work is justified by the need to restore shelf arrangement, seeking to understand its fundamental aspects from the literature in which the activity was systematized. Thus, this paper aims at contributing to reorient the shelf arrangement as an activity of information organization, exploring its conformation in the Francophone literature, from the midnineteenth century up to the 1930s. As for the methodology, this is an exploratory research made possible through the historical-conceptual investigation of shelf arrangement found in the Francophone manuals of librarianship of that period. This study concludes that the activity was placed by that line since the nineteenth century, when its own terminology was developed under the consideration of the intervention of the contexts, using methods and guided by the diversity of proposals.

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines changing views on "systematic" or classified shelf-arrangement in German library science from Kayser's 1790 work Ueber die Manipulation bey der Einrichtung einer Bibliothek to the 1914 Versammlung deutscher Bibliothekare in Leipzig, at which Georg Leyh delivered the seminal paper, "Systematische oder mechanische Aufstellung?" Systematic arrangement was, with few exceptions, held up as an ideal throughout the nineteenth century; but by 1914 it could be agreed to belong to a past era in which, in the words of Leyh, libraries ran as a "Kleinbetrieb" [small business] (Leyh 1913, 100, "Das Dogma von der systematischen Aufstellung II-IV." Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 30:97-135). In particular, this article seeks to explore how changing views on the ideal of systematic shelf-arrangement in German library science during this period reflected evolving conceptions of librarianship. For nineteenth-century writers such as Ebert, Molbech, and Petzholdt, systematic classification and arrangement had meaning against the backdrop of an encyclopedic tradition within which libraries and librarians played an important role in organizing and presenting a rational overview of the universe of knowledge - an overview that was to be both physical and intellectual. The waning of the ideal of systematic arrangement at the turn of the twentieth century was associated with a sense of loss, as an intellectual or "scholarly" tradition of librarianship was seen to give way to more utilitarian and "bureaucratic" expectations. The changing fortunes of the ideal of systematic arrangement in German library science between 1790 and 1914 may be seen to illustrate how progress and loss are often inextricably linked in the history of libraries and librarianship

0.0061805714 = product of:
  0.012361143 = sum of:
    0.012361143 = product of:
      0.024722286 = sum of:
        0.024722286 = weight(_text_:22 in 1827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024722286 = score(doc=1827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 5.2008 15:11:22

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=3274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the late seventies, I was asked to work on classifying our Philosophy (and Psychology) collections, which were still located partly in the stacks and partly in the so-called Seminars-a traditional didactic and research structure of our School-where the books were mostly ordered by format or collection title. As often happens, my task was not completely free of restrictions: the general "new policy" of the entire Library was oriented toward accomplishing an open-shelf decimal classification, and the first step was to avoid an overly complicated schema, as this would probably have rendered more difficult the task of the end users, that is, our students but mainly our teaching staff. At the Scuola Normale Superiore, where historicism has always had an illustrious though somewhat cumbersome tradition (I quote only two philosophers and/or historians of Philosophy: Giovanni Gentile and Eugenio Garin), ordering the Philosophy collection- with its divisions, topics, geographical notations, chronological tables et similia-strictly by the Dewey decimal system might have been unthinkable. A second requirement was to designate a main location to the large collection of the often "complete works" of the philosophical Tradition. This way, the ideal Reader, foreseen to linger for hours in the newly restored library building of the Palazzo della Gherardesca, could easily access the reservoir of the great texts, which were to be followed on the shelves by the secondary literature ad auctorem. All in all, the implicit message to our students and scholars was to be the virtuous necessity of finding, ready on the shelves, the substantial core of the textual Tradition.