Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edit by 122.99.4.125 (talk) to last version by OAbot |
added link |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 58:
There are many standard systems of library classification in use, and many more have been proposed over the years. However, in general, classification systems can be divided into three types depending on how they are used:
; Universal schemes: Covers all subjects, e.g. the [[Dewey Decimal Classification]] (DDC), [[Universal Decimal Classification]] (UDC
; Specific classification schemes: Covers particular subjects or types of materials, e.g. [[Iconclass]] (art), [[British Catalogue of Music Classification]], and [[Dickinson classification]] (music), or the [[NLM Classification]] (medicine).
; National schemes: Specially created for certain countries, e.g. [[Swedish library classification system]], SAB (Sveriges Allmänna Biblioteksförening). The [[Library of Congress Classification]] was designed around the collection of the US [[Library of Congress]] and has an American, European, and Christian bias. Nevertheless, it is used widely in large academic and research libraries.
In terms of functionality, classification systems are often described as:
Line 107:
Newer classification systems tend to use the principle of synthesis (combining codes from different lists to represent the different attributes of a work) heavily, which is comparatively lacking in LC or DDC.
==Practice==
Library classification is associated with library (descriptive) cataloging under the rubric of ''cataloging and classification'', sometimes grouped together as ''technical services''. The library professional who engages in the process of cataloging and classifying library materials is called a ''cataloger'' or ''catalog librarian''. Library classification systems are one of the two tools used to facilitate [[subject access]]. The other consists of alphabetical indexing languages such as Thesauri and Subject Headings systems.
Line 121:
Some classification systems are more suitable for aiding subject access, rather than for shelf ___location. For example, [[Universal Decimal Classification]], which uses a complicated notation of pluses and colons, is more difficult to use for the purpose of shelf arrangement but is more expressive compared to DDC in terms of showing relationships between subjects. Similarly [[faceted classification]] schemes are more difficult to use for shelf arrangement, unless the user has knowledge of the citation order.
Depending on the size of the library collection, some libraries might use classification systems solely for one purpose or the other. In extreme cases, a public library with a small collection might just use a classification system for ___location of resources but might not use a complicated subject classification system. Instead all resources might just be put into a couple of wide classes (travel, crime, magazines etc.). This is known as a "mark and park" classification method, more formally called "reader interest classification".<ref>Lynch, Sarah N., and Eugene Mulero. [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14dewey.html "Dewey? At This Library With a Very Different Outlook, They Don't"] ''[[The New York Times]]'', July 14, 2007.</ref>
==Comparing library classification systems ==
{{See also|Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification}}
As a result of differences in notation, history, use of enumeration, hierarchy, and facets, classification systems can differ in the following ways:
* Type of Notation: Notation can be pure (consisting of only numerals, for example) or mixed (consisting of letters and numerals, or letters, numerals, and other symbols).
Line 151 ⟶ 152:
{{reflist}}
==
{{commons category|Library cataloging and classification|Library classification}}
{{Libraries and library science}}
| |||