Dewey Decimal Classification system
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article
The DDC attempts to organize all knowledge into ten main classes. The ten main classes are each further subdivided into ten divisions, and each division into ten sections, giving ten main classes, 100 divisions and 1000 sections. DDC's advantage in using decimals for its categories allows it to be both purely numerical and infinitely hierarchical. It also uses some aspects of a faceted classification scheme, combining elements from different parts of the structure to construct a number representing the subject content (often combining two subject elements with linking numbers and geographical and temporal elements) and form of an item rather than drawing upon a list containing each class and its meaning.
000 – Computer science, information, and general works
100 – Philosophy and psychology
200 – Religion
300 – Social sciences
400 – Languages
500 – Science and Mathematics
600 – Technology and applied science
700 – Arts and recreation
800 – Literature
900 – History and geography and biography
|
The Dewey system appears easy enough to understand. Certainly, we have more than ten "main classes," I count 18; and originally computer science was not anticipated and was added to the Generalities recently. I have found no information as to how Dewey derived the original classes he patented in the late 1800.
Quote:
DDC's decimal system means that it is less hospitable to the addition of new subjects, as opposed to Library of Congress Classification, which has 21 classes at the top level. DDC notations can be much longer compared to other classification systems.
Another disadvantage of DDC is that it was developed in the 19th century essentially by one man and was built on a top-down approach to classify all human knowledge, which makes it difficult to adapt to changing fields of knowledge. The Library of Congress Classification system was developed based mainly on the idea of literary warrant; classes were added (by individual experts in each area) only when needed for works owned by the Library of Congress. As a result, while the Library of Congress Classification system was able to incorporate changes and additions of new branches of knowledge, particularly in the fields of engineering and computer science (the greater hospitability of the Library of Congress Classification was also a factor), DDC has been criticized for being inadequate in covering those areas. It is asserted that, as a result, most major academic libraries in the US do not use the DDC because the classification of works in those areas is not specific enough, although there are other reasons that may truly be more weighty, such as the much lower expense of using a unique "pre-packaged" catalog number instead of having highly skilled staff members engaging in the time-consuming development of catalog numbers.
The Library of Congress Classification system is not without problems. Because each area is developed by an expert according to demands of cataloging, there is little consistency. It is also highly US-centric (more so than DDC) because of the nature of the system, and it has been translated into far fewer languages than DDC and UDC.
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. It is not to be confused with the Library of Congress Subject Headings or Library of Congress Control Number. Most public libraries and small academic libraries continue to use the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).
The classification was originally developed by Herbert Putnam in 1897, just before he assumed the librarianship of Congress. With advice from Charles Ammi Cutter, it was influenced by Cutter Expansive Classification, and the DDC, and was specially designed for the special purposes of the Library of Congress. The new system replaced a fixed location system developed by Thomas Jefferson. By the time of Putnam's departure from his post in 1939, all the classes except K (Law) and parts of B (Philosophy and Religion) were well developed. It has been criticized as lacking a sound theoretical basis; many of the classification decisions were driven by the particular practical needs of that library, rather than epistemological considerations.
Although it divides subjects into broad categories, it is essentially enumerative in nature. It provides a guide to the books actually in the library, not a classification of the world.
A General Works
B Philosophy, Psychology, and Religion
C Auxiliary Sciences of History
D General and Old World History
E History of America
F History of the United States and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America
G Geography, Anthropology, and Recreation
H Social Sciences
J Political Science
K Law
L Education
M Music
N Fine Arts
P Language and Literature
Q Science
R Medicine
S Agriculture
T Technology
U Military Science
V Naval Science
Z Bibliography, Library Science, and General Information Resources
|
To their credit neither classification system takes the responsibility to classify information in a rendition of how people perceive knowledge to arrange in some type of order. Their claims are ambiguous, unscientific for sure. I mean if science can determine an order of physical, chemical and biological matter, why should science not be able to determine the order of human knowledge?
And because of the advancements in scientific discovery (defining information), detailing categories, I believe it is now possible to present information in a manner that resembles the perception of how knowledge is arranged. And I have composed a rendition that I am prepared to release publicaly. However, it is to everyones advantage if there is some other rendition presented for comparison. I sincerely believe my system is very stable for at least four levels of the hierarchy, and only variations of my system are possible, and once my system is released I am confident of a monopoly that will send it directly to local government regulation and state and federal recording.
Notice how the term, "science," is used. It does not align with what we have been discussing in the, What is Science, thread. If science is the act of performing the scientific method then the sub-categories of such domains should be the steps of the method with respect to the sub-fields' better designation of the step.
And, then there's, "Generalities."
ROTFLMAO
