Excellent staff report Dex; had one (probably irrelavant) question.
Some years ago while I in a library in the midwest, I saw a poster explaining the Dewey Decimal system, specifically the reasoning as to why Philosophy was in the 100’s, Religion the 200’s, etc. The poster claimed the progression of classification are based on the assumed progression of questions humanity would ask: First, “Who am I,” (philosophy), then (I think) “Why are we here?” (religion), then (again, i thin) “Who are these other humans?” (Social science), all the way thru the final 900 class history.
I thought it was a cute interpretation, but doubted this is the real reason why Dewey numbered his progression of categories. Did you come across anything like this, or for that matter any reason why, e.g. Pure Science at 500is followed by Applied Science at 600?
I’m sure Dewey had some logic, and that may have been it. I didn’t find anything specifically (at least, not that I recall) but there was tons of info that I skimmed over. Damn report was already way too long.
Totally off topic, non sequitur, etc.
I’m from the North Mojave, Ridgecrest/China Lake originally, transplanted long ago. Do I correctly assume from your name that you are from somewhere along Route 66 in the Mojave desert? If so, I salute a kindred spirit.
By the way, Drew University, in Madison, NJ, uses a rough Dewey as its main classification system, but then appends Cutter numbers, suffixed by just enough letters from the title to be unique, thus:
Lewis, C. S. 1898-1963.
An experiment in criticism
801 L673e
Lewis, C. S. 1898-1963.
Perelandra, a novel by C. S. Lewis.
828 L673pe
Lewis, C. S. 1898-1963
The pilgrim’s regress; an allegorical apology for Christianity, reason, and romanticism
828 L673pi
These “Cutter numbers”, however, are not the same “Cutter numbers” used by the LOC.
At University, I studied computer science. The Australian National University uses the Library of Congress system. One thing I know from the reader’s perspective was that using the LLC system was much easier. For example, many computer science books were grouped under QA31. Going to a shelf and finding books on topics of interest in the field was much easier this way – we had electronic catalogues but it was usually easier to browse the right area. The equivalent in Dewey, and I’m just making it up, would be something like 902.893.333. The big problem with Dewey, especially at a university is that, say 902, could be miles of shelves whereas QA31 was quite a discreet range of shelves. It’s simply much easier to remember QA31 than 902 point something., point something.
QA76 is the LC classification number for computers, and citing it as QA31 proves that it is hardly easier to remember than 004 to 006, the corresponding Dewey range of numbers.
I think dougaus’s example illustrates very well a point made in the Staff Report. Think of the library as a huge system of file folders, with material in each folder. Under LCC, you have many more folders, with less in them. Under DDC, you have fewer folders with more in them.
That’s exactly the point. For a technical library, where you’re looking for lots of info on one subject, LCC will be more efficient; you just need to remember the numbers that refer to your topic. For a public library, where (over time) you’re looking for info on lots of different topics, DCC will be more efficient; you can get to different topics faster.
And welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, dougaus, we’re glad to have you with us!
