Comparative study of major classification schemes

Download Comparative study of major classification schemes

Post on 28-Nov-2014




2 download

Embed Size (px)


helpful for library and information science


<ul><li> 1. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MAJOR CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES FOR MLIS AIOU STUDENT SEMESTER 3rd. Presented By: Nadeem Sohail Librarian Rachna College Of Engineering &amp; Technology Gujranwala Contact No. 03014236817 Email: </li> <li> 2. LIBRARY COLLECTION CLASSIFICATION IMAGE </li> <li> 3. CLASSIFICATION Act of organizing the universe of knowledge into a systematic order Library classification the systematic arrangement of books and other materials on shelves or of catalogue and index entries in the manner which is most useful to those who read or who seek a definite piece of information </li> <li> 4. LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION? A library classification is a system of coding and organizing library materials (books, serials, audiovisual materials, computer files, maps, manuscripts) according to their subject and allocating a call number to that information resource. Similar to classification systems used in biology, bibliographic classification systems group entities that are similar together typically arranged in a hierarchical tree structure. </li> <li> 5. LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION---2 In terms of functionality, classification systems are often described as ENUMERATIVE: produce an alphabetical list of subject headings, assign numbers to each heading in alphabetical order HIERARCHICAL: divides subjects hierarchically, from most general to most specific FACETED OR ANALYTICO-SYNTHETIC: divides subjects into mutually exclusive orthogonal facets 5 </li> <li> 6. LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS/ SCHEMES Dewey Decimal Classification System Library of Congress Classification System Universal Decimal Classification System Colon Classification System Bibliographic Classification System Subject Classification System Expansive Classification System National Library of Medicine Classification </li> <li> 7. Why different Classification systems? Although all classification systems provide access to information. Some systems work better with specific types of information or in specific types of Libraries. Libraries choose a classification system based on three factors 1. Collection Size 2. Subjects/ Materials in the Collection 3. End User </li> <li> 8. Why Different Classification Systems For example, The DDC is a broad with classification system. DDC categories include many subjects that are loosely related, but easy to search. This system works well in library that have general subjects, or specific Academic subjects. </li> <li> 9. Why Different Classification Systems? Libraries with Small to Medium collections, generally Public Libraries or School libraries favor this system for its ease of use of their patron base. The Library of Congress Cataloging system is a much narrower system meant for use in libraries that have multiple subcategories. </li> <li> 10. Why Different Classification Systems? Libraries with Small to Medium collections, generally Public Libraries or School libraries favor this system for its ease of use of their patron base. The Library of Congress Cataloging system is a much narrower system meant for use in libraries that have multiple subcategories. </li> <li> 11. Why Different Classification Systems? Libraries with Small to Medium collections, generally Public Libraries or School libraries favor this system for its ease of use of their patron base. The Library of Congress Cataloging system is a much narrower system meant for use in libraries that have multiple subcategories. </li> <li> 12. Why Different Classification Systems? Not all classification systems classify books. Many Libraries use classification systems to classify: Music Art Government Documents </li> <li> 13. DEWEY DECIMAL AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Where do these systems fit? The most common classification systems, LC and DDC, are essentially enumerative, though with some hierarchical and faceted elements, (more so for DDC), especially at the broadest and most general level. The first true faceted system was the Colon classification of S. R. Ranganathan. </li> <li> 14. DEWEY DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION (DDC) Melville Dewey (1851-1931) invented the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) while he was working as a student-assistant in the library of Amherst College in 1873. He published the Dewey Decimal Classification system in 1876. His original name was Melville Louis Kossuth Dewey. He dropped his middle names and changed the spelling of his first name, and he even spelled his last name Dui! </li> <li> 15. BRIEF INTRODUCTION Latest edition 5 vols, 23nd edition First came out as a 44-page anonymously published pamphlet entitled A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloging and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library </li> <li> 16. 10 MAIN CLASSES OF DDC 000 Generalities 100 Philosophy and Psychology 200 Religion 300 Social Sciences 400 Language 500 Natural Sciences and Mathematics 600 Technology and Applied Sciences 700 The Arts 800 Literature and Rhetoric 900 Geography and History </li> <li> 17. 7 TABLES of DDC Table 1 Standard subdivisions Table 2 Geographic areas, historical periods, persons Table 3 Subdivisions for individual literatures, for specific literary forms Table 3A Subdivisions for works by or about individual authors Table 3B Subdivisions for works by or about more than one author Table 3C Notation to be added where instructed in Table 3B and in 808-809 Table 4 Subdivisions of individual languages Table 5 Racial, ethnic, national groups Table 6 Languages Table 7 Groups of persons </li> <li> 18. NUMBER BUILDING Adding an entire number to a base number A bibliography for Physics The main number for bibliographies and catalogs of works on specific subjects or in specific disciplines with a note to add to base number 016 notation 001-999 the number for the specific subject 016 The number for physics 530 The subject number added to the base number 016 530 The resulting number, terminal zero removed 016.53 </li> <li> 19. MERITS Practical Relative location Relative index brings together different aspects of the same subject scattered in different disciplines Pure notation of Arabic numerals is universally recognizable Self-evident numerical sequence Hierarchical nature of notation expresses relationships between and among class numbers Use of decimal system enables vast expansion Mnemonic nature of notation helps library users to navigate within the system Continuous revision and publication of the schedules ensures currency </li> <li> 20. WEAKNESSES Anglo-American bias Related disciplines are often separated Proper placement of certain subjects have also been questioned Literary works of the same author are scattered according to literary form Base of ten limits the hospitality of the notational system by restricting the capacity for accommodating subjects on the same level of a hierarchy to nine divisions Uneven structure No new numbers can be inserted Lengthy numbers Relocations and completely revised schedules create practical problems in terms of reclassification </li> <li> 21. Begin to get the picture? 500--Natural Science 559900----ZZoooollooggiiccaall SScciieenncceess 559955----OOtthheerr iinnvveerrtteebbrraatteess 21 559955..77----IInnsseeccttss 559955..7788----LLeeppiiddoopptteerraa 559955..778899----BBuutttteerrfflliieess </li> <li> 22. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CLASSIFICATION (LCC) The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) is a system of library classification developed by the Library of Congress. It is used by most research and academic libraries in the U.S. and several other countries; for example, Australia and Taiwan, R.O.C. </li> <li> 23. LC CLASSIFICATION HISTORY The Library of Congress was founded in 1780 The earliest classification system was by size (folios, quartos, octavos), subdivided by accession numbers In 1812 there were 3000 volumes and the size-based system was failing A system with 18 categories was devised </li> <li> 24. LC CLASSIFICATION HISTORY In 1814 the Capitol was burned (LCs collection was housed there) Thomas Jefferson offered to sell Congress his library to re-establish LC He had cataloged and classified the works His scheme had 44 classes Jeffersons scheme (modified somewhat over the years) was used in the LC until the end of the 19th century </li> <li> 25. LC CLASSIFICATION Different subject specialists developed each individual LC schedule following a broad general framework which was established to ensure coordination Each schedule of a class or parts of classes was published as completed Schedules are revised through committee review and then reissued </li> <li> 26. LCC SCHEDULES LCC schedules comprise 43 volumes Basic schedules A short general outline which contains secondary and tertiary subclass spans for most classes For complete list see </li> <li> 27. LC CLASSIFICATION Because LCC involves letters and letter combination as well as numbers, it will continue to accommodate new subjects and aspects of subjects for a long time LCC is favored by large university and research collections Hospitality and inherent flexibility Also used in smaller academic and public libraries and some special libraries Doesnt handle broad classifications well </li> <li> 28. 21 MAIN CLASSES OF LCC A General works B Philosophy, Psychology, Religion C Auxiliary sciences of history D History: General and Old World E General history of America F Local history of America G Geography, Maps, Anthropology, Recreation H Social Sciences J Political Science K Law L Education M Music and books on music N Fine arts P Language and Literature Q Science R Medicine S Agriculture T Technology U Military Science V Naval Science Z Bibliography and Library Science </li> <li> 29. MERITS Practical system that has proved to be satisfactory Based on the literary demand of the materials in the Library of Congress collection Enumerative system that requires minimal notational synthesis Each schedule was developed by subject specialists Notation is compact and hospitable Frequent additions and changes, stemming for the most part from what is needed in the day to day cataloging work at LC, and these are made readily available to the cataloging community Minimal reclassification </li> <li> 30. WEAKNESSES Scope notes are inferior to those of DDC. There is much national bias in emphasis and terminology. Too few subjects are seen as compounds. Alphabetical arrangements are often used in place of logical hierarchies. There is no clear and predictable theoretical basis for subject analysis. As a result of maintaining stability, parts of the classification are obsolete in the sense that structure and collocation do not reflect current conditions. It is expen...</li></ul>


View more >