• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >The Library of Congress, Dewey Decimal, and Universal Decimal Classification Systems are Incomplete and Unsystematic
【24h】

The Library of Congress, Dewey Decimal, and Universal Decimal Classification Systems are Incomplete and Unsystematic

机译：国会图书馆，杜威十进制和通用十进制分类系统不完整且不系统

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective – To determine the extent to which knowledge is currently addressed by the Library of Congress (LCC), Dewey Decimal (DDC), and Universal Decimal (UDC) classification systems. Design – Comparative analysis of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems using Zin’s 10 Pillars of Knowledge. Setting – The Faculty of Philosophy and Science at a Brazilian university. Subjects – Forty one subject-related classes and 386 subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Methods – To evaluate the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems, the researchers employed the 10 Pillars of Knowledge, a “hierarchical knowledge tree” developed by the lead author of this study (p. 878). According to the authors, the 10 Pillars of Knowledge seek to illustrate relationships between fields of knowledge while capturing their breadth. The first level of the Pillars consists of the following categories: Knowledge, Supernatural, Matter and Energy, Space and Earth, Nonhuman Organizations, Body and Mind, Society, Thought and Art, Technology, and History. Each of the 10 Pillars is further subdivided, resulting in a four level hierarchical structure of 76 categories. Of the 76 categories, 55 are unique subject areas. A selection of subject-based classes and subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems were then mapped to the relevant subclasses within the Pillars. Analysis was limited to the first two levels of LCC, DDC, and UDC, except for the LCC categories of BF and BL where further subclasses were analyzed. Classes or subclasses in LCC, DDC, or UDC that were not subject based (for example, those based on publication type) were excluded from the study. In total, 41 main classes and 386 subclasses from LLC, DDC, and UDC were categorized using the 10 Pillars. Main Results – The LLC, DDC, and UDC systems were deemed to be complete and systematic in their coverage of only three of the 10 Pillars: Matter and Energy, Thought and Art, and History. This means that there was at least one class or subclass in each of the three systems that corresponded to the subclasses in these pillars. The remaining seven pillars were only partially covered by the three systems to varying degrees. For example, the coverage of religion in LCC and DDC show evidence of a bias towards Christianity and incomplete coverage of other faiths. In addition to the lack of completeness in terms of subject coverage, the researchers found inconsistencies and problems with how relationships between subjects were illustrated by the systems. For example, botany should be a subclass of biology, but the subjects occupy the same level in the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Researchers also noted cases where subclasses on the same level were not mutually exclusive e.g., the BR (Christianity) and BS (The Bible) subclasses in LCC. Overall, LLC performed slightly better than DDC or UDC, covering 47 of the 55 unique subject categories in the 10 Pillars. It was followed by UDC with 44 out of 55, and DDC with 43 out of 55. Some of the 55 unique subject categories in the 10 Pillars system were not represented by any of the systems: 3 subclasses under Society (Society at Large – Area Based, Social Groups – Age, and Social Groups – Ethnicity), 2 under Technology (Technologies – Materials and Technologies – Processes), and 1 under Foundations (Methodology). Conclusion – The researchers conclude that none of the three major classification systems analyzed provides complete and systematic coverage of the world of knowledge, and call for the library community to move to new systems, such as the 10 Pillars of Knowledge.
机译：目标–确定国会图书馆（LCC），杜威十进制（DDC）和通用十进制（UDC）分类系统当前处理知识的程度。设计–使用Zin的10条知识支柱对LCC，DDC和UDC系统进行比较分析。地点-巴西大学哲学与科学学院。主题– LCC，DDC和UDC系统的前两个级别的41个与主题相关的类和386个子类。方法–为了评估LCC，DDC和UDC系统，研究人员使用了该研究的主要作者开发的10个知识支柱，即“分层知识树”（第878页）。这组作者说，“知识的十大支柱”试图说明知识领域之间的关系，同时捕捉其广度。支柱的第一级包括以下类别：知识，超自然，物质与能量，空间与地球，非人类组织，身心，社会，思想与艺术，技术和历史。 10个支柱中的每一个都进一步细分，从而形成了76个类别的四级层次结构。在76个类别中，有55个是独特的学科领域。然后，从LCC，DDC和UDC系统的前两个级别中选择基于主题的类和子类，并将其映射到支柱中的相关子类。分析仅限于LCC，DDC和UDC的前两个级别，除了BF和BL的LCC类别已对其他子类进行了分析。 LCC，DDC或UDC中不基于主题的类或子类（例如，基于出版物类型的类）不包括在研究中。总共使用10个支柱对LLC，DDC和UDC的41个主要类和386个子类进行了分类。主要成果– LLC，DDC和UDC系统被认为是完整而系统的，仅涵盖了10个支柱中的三个：物质与能源，思想与艺术以及历史。这意味着，与这些支柱中的子类相对应的三个系统中的至少每个都有一个类或子类。其余七个支柱仅在不同程度上被这三个系统部分覆盖。例如，在LCC和DDC中对宗教的报道显示出对基督教的偏见和对其他信仰的不完全报道。除了在主题覆盖范围方面缺乏完整性外，研究人员还发现系统如何说明主题之间的关系存在不一致和问题。例如，植物学应该是生物学的一个子类，但是这些学科在LCC，DDC和UDC系统中占有相同的水平。研究人员还指出了相同级别的子类不是互斥的情况，例如LCC中的BR（基督教）和BS（圣经）子类。总体而言，LLC的表现略好于DDC或UDC，涵盖了10个支柱的55个独特主题类别中的47个。紧随其后的是UDC（55个中的44个）和DDC（55个中的43个）。10个支柱系统中的55个独特主题类别中的某些类别没有任何一个系统代表：社会（大社会–区域）下的3个子类总部，社会群体–年龄和社会群体–种族），技术（技术–材料和技术–过程）下的2，基础（方法论）下的1。结论–研究人员得出的结论是，所分析的三个主要分类系统均未提供对知识世界的完整而系统的覆盖，并呼吁图书馆界转向新的系统，例如“知识的十大支柱”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号