It's used in cmsd.tmpl. I've found it on dictionary.com but I didn't be able to determine what's the right definition, the closest match in context could be: Dewey, Melvil. 1851-1931. American librarian and founder of the decimal system of classification (1876). But I really don't know what are doing Melvil Dewey at my computer O_O
Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso a écrit:
It's used in cmsd.tmpl. I've found it on dictionary.com but I didn't be able to determine what's the right definition, the closest match in context could be:
Dewey, Melvil. 1851-1931. American librarian and founder of the decimal system of classification (1876).
But I really don't know what are doing Melvil Dewey at my computer O_O
He is the creator of... the dewey decimal classification. A dewey number is xxx.yyy If you assign a dewey num=004.716, you mean the notice is about "PC peripheral" -- Paul
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:58:49AM +0100, paul POULAIN wrote:
He is the creator of... the dewey decimal classification. A dewey number is xxx.yyy If you assign a dewey num=004.716, you mean the notice is about "PC peripheral"
I think this is also related to someone asking about using LC classification instead of Dewey. ("My" library also uses LC. I never really started inputting any substantial amount of test data... sorry.) Regarding that question, would the meaning of the Dewey field be changed so that it would hold any local call number? Or would there be separate fields for Dewey and LC? (In that case what if the library uses something else? Some Chinese libraries use some standard that could be translated as the "Chinese book classification system"; it looks like Dewey but is not.) If the Dewey field is going to mean just any local call number, should the templates say "Call number" instead of "Dewey"?
Ambrose Li a écrit:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:58:49AM +0100, paul POULAIN wrote:
He is the creator of... the dewey decimal classification. A dewey number is xxx.yyy If you assign a dewey num=004.716, you mean the notice is about "PC peripheral"
I think this is also related to someone asking about using LC classification instead of Dewey. ("My" library also uses LC. I never really started inputting any substantial amount of test data... sorry.)
Regarding that question, would the meaning of the Dewey field be changed so that it would hold any local call number? Or would there be separate fields for Dewey and LC? (In that case what if the library uses something else? Some Chinese libraries use some standard that could be translated as the "Chinese book classification system"; it looks like Dewey but is not.)
If the Dewey field is going to mean just any local call number, should the templates say "Call number" instead of "Dewey"?
In the 1.3.x series, as you define the MARC structure, you can handle as many classification numbers as you need. As you can map one with koha "dewey" number, this field can contain any classification. You're right. The only problem is the numeric structure that may be wrong for some classification. -- Paul
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, paul POULAIN wrote:
In the 1.3.x series, as you define the MARC structure, you can handle as many classification numbers as you need. As you can map one with koha "dewey" number, this field can contain any classification. You're right. The only problem is the numeric structure that may be wrong for some classification.
I think the dewey field is going to become a character field soon in any case. Numeric isn't right for dewey either as 156.0 is different from 156 and 156.00. Steve.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 07:43:23AM -0800, Tonnesen Steve wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, paul POULAIN wrote: I think the dewey field is going to become a character field soon in any case. Numeric isn't right for dewey either as 156.0 is different from 156 and 156.00.
Thank you! So while we're at it, can anyone clarify the general form of a Dewey number? I've seen "123" and "123.45", of course, but also apostrophes and slashes: "123.45'67". Would /\d{3}(\.[\d\'\/]+)?/ do the trick, or is there more? Are slashes and apostrophes equivalent? (I ask mainly because when I write code, I like to check the input for sanity. "FOOBAR" is definitely not a valid Dewey code). PS: Personally, I think it might be cool to be able to browse topic space. That is, when you look up a book by biblio or biblioitem, there could be a link at the bottom of the page saying, "Find other books on this topic." If the book has Dewey code 123.45, it would list other books with code 123.45<whatever>, but also books with code 123<whatever>. But like so many cool features, this might be harder to implement than it sounds. -- Andrew Arensburger This message *does* represent the arensb@ooblick.com views of ooblick.com User error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:01:44AM -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
So while we're at it, can anyone clarify the general form of a Dewey number? I've seen "123" and "123.45", of course, but also apostrophes and slashes: "123.45'67". Would
The apostrophes and slashes are like the middle dots you see in dictionaries; they help the cataloguer to know where the "word break" in the code is. In the case of a code like "123.45'67", it means that the library has the liberty to choose between assigning "123.45" (less detail in the catalogue) and "123.4567" (more detail). AFAIK deployed Dewey codes should not have slashes or apostrophes. Caveat: I am not a librarian, so perhaps my understanding is not right either. -- Ambrose Li ``A good style should show no sign of effort; what is written should seem a happy accident.'' ~ Somerset Maugham
<quote who="Ambrose Li [CCCGT]">
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:01:44AM -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
So while we're at it, can anyone clarify the general form of a Dewey number? I've seen "123" and "123.45", of course, but also apostrophes and slashes: "123.45'67". Would
The apostrophes and slashes are like the middle dots you see in dictionaries; they help the cataloguer to know where the "word break" in the code is. In the case of a code like "123.45'67", it means that the library has the liberty to choose between assigning "123.45" (less detail in the catalogue) and "123.4567" (more detail). AFAIK deployed Dewey codes should not have slashes or apostrophes.
The dot after first three digits in a DC number doesn't have any semantic value. It's only to give a better look to the number ... to soothe the eyes perhaps ;-) AFAIK, the latest edition of DC has implemented apostrophe (perhaps for individualising the "Area" number). Till now only UDC uses slashes I believe. Saiful DRTC Bangalore, India.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:02:32AM -0500, Ambrose Li wrote: [...skipped...]
(In that case what if the library uses something else? Some Chinese libraries use some standard that could be translated as the "Chinese book classification system"; it looks like Dewey but is not.)
(Continuing my crazy thoughts and following up to myself...) Some further thoughts: what if the library uses two classification schemes in parallel, in the same catalogue? This may seem bizzare to English speakers, but libraries that use the Chinese system frequently class Chinese books in the Chinese system but English books in Dewey. (E.g., call numbers for Chinese fiction might be 8xx but English fiction, 9xx.) Would this mean that it would make sense to extend the db to contain more than one kind of call number (as in MARC), but display just "Call number" in the interface? Or would it make more sense to have the db have just one call number, but also a "call number type"? Are there places in the world where a library would use more than 2 classification systems in the same catalog? :-(
If the Dewey field is going to mean just any local call number, should the templates say "Call number" instead of "Dewey"?
-- Ambrose Li <a.c.li@ieee.org> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/cmcc/ http://www.cccgt.org/ DRM is theft - We are the stakeholders
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:02:32AM -0500, Ambrose Li wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:58:49AM +0100, paul POULAIN wrote:
He is the creator of... the dewey decimal classification. A dewey number is xxx.yyy If you assign a dewey num=004.716, you mean the notice is about "PC peripheral"
I think this is also related to someone asking about using LC classification instead of Dewey. ("My" library also uses LC. I never really started inputting any substantial amount of test data... sorry.)
Naive question: does LC indicate the topic, just like Dewey? Or is it more generally a code that tells you where to find a given book?
Regarding that question, would the meaning of the Dewey field be changed so that it would hold any local call number? Or would there be separate fields for Dewey and LC? (In that case what if the library uses something else? Some Chinese libraries use some standard that could be translated as the "Chinese book classification system"; it looks like Dewey but is not.)
My two cents' worth: I suspect it'd be better to support both Dewey and the local call number (and Paul hinted that this should be fairly easy). The obvious reason for this is that libraries are human constructs, humans live in a messy world, and therefore there will doubtless be times when it's convenient to have both classification schemes. If the LC ultimately determines the physical location of a given book, then its purpose is different from the Dewey code: books with similar call numbers would be close to each other on the shelf, whereas books with similar Dewey numbers would be close to each other in the catalog. I have a somewhat extreme example to help me visualize the problem: say there's a geographic library that mainly has maps, with some random number of books. This library might be organized geographically, with "Geological map of England" and "Tourist's Guide to London" on the same bookshelf. Perhaps this library uses longitude and latitude as the local call number. In this library, it could be useful to be able to search both by local call number ("What do you have about New York?") and by topic/Dewey ("Which political atlases do you have?"). As a general principle, I believe it's best when software tools give users the means to do what they want, and not force them to do things a certain way. Then they can surprise and delight you with the uses to which they've put your creation. -- Andrew Arensburger This message *does* represent the arensb@ooblick.com views of ooblick.com Push the button, Frank.
<quote who="Andrew Arensburger">
Naive question: does LC indicate the topic, just like Dewey? Or is it more generally a code that tells you where to find a given book? If the LC ultimately determines the physical location of a given book, then its purpose is different from the Dewey code: books with similar call numbers would be close to each other on the shelf, whereas books with similar Dewey numbers would be close to each other in the catalog.
The LC call number *does* represent the topic. It uses mixed notation, ie, both alphabets and numbers. It starts with an English capital letter. Each letter represents a discipline. Saiful DRTC Bangalore, India.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:30:51AM -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
Naive question: does LC indicate the topic, just like Dewey? Or is it more generally a code that tells you where to find a given book?
[...skipped...]
If the LC ultimately determines the physical location of a given book, then its purpose is different from the Dewey code: books with similar call numbers would be close to each other on the shelf, whereas books with similar Dewey numbers would be close to each other in the catalog.
I have a somewhat extreme example to help me visualize the problem: say there's a geographic library that mainly has maps, with some random number of books. This library might be organized geographically, with "Geological map of England" and "Tourist's Guide to London" on the same bookshelf. Perhaps this library uses longitude and latitude as the local call number. In this library, it could be useful to be able to search both by local call number ("What do you have about New York?") and by topic/Dewey ("Which political atlases do you have?").
Hmm, I thought that both Dewey and LC have similar functions. But then I'm not a librarian. My understanding is that the primary function of both Dewey and LC is to determine the physical locations of a book; they just happen to also indicate a "primary" topic (whatever that means). The "real" classification (assignment of subject headings) use a list such as Sears (usually used together with Dewey) or the LC subject headings (usually used together with the LC code). Multiple subject headings can be assigned, and in the case of MARC these are placed in the 6XX and 7XX fields. In the case of having multiple topics in a book (which is usually the case), the librarian doing the cataloguing would decide which is the "primary" topic and use that as a basis to assign the call number. My two cents' worth (my naive answer); don't know how accruate it is :P -- Ambrose Li ``A good style should show no sign of effort; what is written should seem a happy accident.'' ~ Somerset Maugham
<quote who="Ambrose Li [CCCGT]">
Hmm, I thought that both Dewey and LC have similar functions. But then I'm not a librarian.
Yes, you are right here.
My understanding is that the primary function of both Dewey and LC is to determine the physical locations of a book; they just happen to also indicate a "primary" topic (whatever that means).
The "real" classification (assignment of subject headings) use a list such as Sears (usually used together with Dewey) or the LC subject headings (usually used together with the LC code). Multiple subject headings can be assigned, and in the case of MARC these are placed in the 6XX and 7XX fields. In the case of having multiple topics in a book (which is usually the case), the librarian doing the cataloguing would decide which is the "primary" topic and use that as a basis to assign the call number.
Strictly in librarians terminology, the job of a classifier is to assign the class number to a document using any classification scheme such as DDC, LC, and UDC. The assignment of subject headings (or 'keywords' for IT people) is the job of the cataloguer. Since the cataloguing of a book is done after the book has been classified the subject headings/keywords can be derived from the class number using any method such as "Chain Procedure." The chain procedure of Ranganathan was successfully used in the British National Bibliography (until mid-seventies) to create the subject index. So, I really don't know what you mean by "real" classification :-( Saiful
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:37:56AM +0530, Saiful Amin wrote:
Strictly in librarians terminology, the job of a classifier is to assign the class number to a document using any classification scheme such as DDC, LC, and UDC. The assignment of subject headings (or 'keywords' for IT people) is the job of the cataloguer. Since the cataloguing of a book is done after the book has been classified the subject headings/keywords can be derived from the class number using any method such as "Chain Procedure." The chain procedure of Ranganathan was successfully used in the British National Bibliography (until mid-seventies) to create the subject index.
Hmm. I don't think I was taught that classification is done before subject headings. But then that was a long time ago (only one year ago, but I have not been involving in the library very much). Well, there's always something new to learn. ^_^
So, I really don't know what you mean by "real" classification :-(
Ah, the problem is a non-librarian pretending to know enough...
Saiful
-- Ambrose Li <a.c.li@ieee.org> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/cmcc/ http://www.cccgt.org/ DRM is theft - We are the stakeholders
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:30:51AM -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
As a general principle, I believe it's best when software tools give users the means to do what they want, and not force them to do things a certain way. Then they can surprise and delight you with the uses to which they've put your creation.
I think in the case of call numbers, the problem is deeper than the software; it is systemic in how library catalogues are constructed. I've read some (more than 1) book discussing how user-unfriendly the system (of call numbers and subject heading assignment, not any particular cataloguing software) is. So I guess we can try our best to make Koha avoid forcing users to do things a certain way, but a lot of users (librarians) will do things a certain way because it's prescribed in AACR2 of something like that. -- Ambrose Li Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto | http://www.cccgt.org/
participants (7)
-
Ambrose Li -
Ambrose Li [CCCGT] -
Andrew Arensburger -
Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso -
paul POULAIN -
Saiful Amin -
Tonnesen Steve