To enable a person to find a resource of which either:
- the author
- the title
- the subject
is known.
To show what the library has access to
- by a given author
- on a given subject
- in a given text type/format
- in a given series
To assist in the choice of a resource
- as to its edition (bibliographically)
- as to its character (literary or topical)
- as to its reliability
"resource" and "access to" indicate that we are no longer just dealing with print resources, but digital ones, many of which are online.
Based on the objectives by Cutter 1904, p. 12, cited in Hider, 2008, p. 10.
Summarising the quote by Hensen (2001), information is starting to be classified by its content and substance, rather than where it is stored, and this is how it should be. Well, I agree with this to an extent. I think as far as retrieving items there is still a place for sorting by author in regards to fiction items, not just because it works, but because it means if you find one text that you like, you can then immediately find others by the same author. But as far as sorting digital items, it makes sense to do it this way, as it can be retrieved without going somewhere in particular to find it. The way non-fiction print texts are currently classified (Dewey Decimal system) does this to an extent, but each item has to be allocated to one particular section, even if it has elements that fit within others (although it must be noted, other elements of the text can still come up in the search). Digital resources do not have this problem. I do believe that we have done the best we can with the things we have over the years, and this method of classification would not have been viable before the digital age.
References:
Steven L. Hensen … in a post to the Diglib online discussion list. Quote of the Month, American Libraries, 32 (1, Jan 2001): 86.
Hider, P (with Harvey, R) 2008, Organising knowledge in a global society, rev. edn. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Centre for Information Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment