Aida,
If you want 53/54 to file before 53, I suppose the only way would be to
make it 53a54 and the simple number 53 would have to be 53b (blank!).
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Aida Slavic [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 October 2003 15:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UDC in shelfmark
Andrew,
This is very good idea (similar to Audacious), I did not
know it was actually implemented for shelves
I think it would be easy to produce mapping of
UDC symbol filing order to alphabetical facet indicators
I would avoid to use i, o, l, but it can works something like
this...
+ ignore this
/ 53a54 this remain the problem
simple number -----
: 53b54
=... 53c111
(0...) 53d03
(1/9) 53e410
(=...) 53f111
"..." 53g19
A/Z 53hA/Z
.00 does not exist any more but 'i'
[-01 reserve this for processes = j - planned to be
introduced]
-02 53k023 [Properties]
-03 53m032 [Materials]
-05 53n052 [Persons]
-1/9 53p1
.0 53r01
' 53s33
* 53t30C
Is there any way to handle /???
As a consequence ciation order should be a reversed sequence.
53k023g19f111
Anyway, according to the research done on the human perceptions
and code handling in the fifties it was concluded that combination
of letters and numbers works the best (up to 4 letters
and 4 numbers). This was then used as a basis in designing
car plates in many countries.
Aida
-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for UDC users, developers and researchers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andrew Buxton
Sent: 10 October 2003 15:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UDC in shelfmark
Hello Aida,
When I was looking at handling UDC numbers by computer, I remember that
the British Architectural Library replaced punctuation by letters, e.g.
53b03. This was for computer sorting, but it would make it a lot easier
to shelve books correctly too - no knowledge of the filing order of
punctuation or other notation is required! You choose the letters to
get the correct order.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Aida Slavic [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 October 2003 14:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: UDC in shelfmark
Hi!
Recently I was again reminded on how
UDC compound numbers are cumbersome for shelf ordering.
I would really appreciate if I would learn about different
opinions on this.
I can't rely on my own experience as I have always
worked in a UDC libraries most of my librarians' life
and never found any problem because UDC consists of blocks of notation.
Shelf classes (UDC) in the libraries I worked for were large
(rarely smaller than 20-50 titles)with structured call number based
on good old library practice gathering the same works under single
call number
collection mark (present, expressed by colour of label or implied)
class mark (UDC)
book mark (three letters of book catalogue heading or Cutter # for the
same)
work mark (first letter(s) title / surname of the editor if anonymous)
Shelves were marked with sliding plastic labels with number and
descriptions e.g. 611/612 Human biology 53(091) History of physics
which would be positioned at the beginning of the class every time
shelving was finished.
If users were not keen on browsing but would like to know
exact subject they would use the catalogue and look for the subject and
get exact place of the books he/she wants.
My only other experience was shelving Dewey and
NLM in UK and I found Dewey a bit slower to shelf as Dewey is harder
to read in blocks e.g. when you have 3+6 last digits to analyse. But
this
is only because, lacking 'systematic catalogue' and possibility
to combine detailed numbers for retrieval and simple number for shelves,
public libraries in UK I worked in tend to exercise the power of
classification
on shelves and open a new class for every one or two titles: resulting
in
'specification' of subjects on the shelf rather than simple gathering of
subject for the purpose of shelf browsing.
As for NLM I found it very easy to shelve as it has combination of
letters and numbers)
Does anyone of you have any experience (bad or good) attempting
to use simple, non-combined UDC only for shelf arrangement for a
larg(er) collection let's say for more than 100.000 books? (I know
that simple UDC is often used in in 'smaller' libraries).
Librarians when they are first introduced to the library
shelves wonder would it be possible to get rid
of all this / (strokes) and brackets (091)and colons : - as
they represent problem to file shelving staff, temporary staff etc.
They are also under pressure because of the poor support of the
library systems and problems in filing compound numbers.
It is, of course, possible to remove this from the shelf order
BUT would you recommend it? Did anyone try to 'trade' the logic
of organization removing this
53 Physic
53(03) Dictionaries, manuals, lexicons, encyclopaedias of physics
53(075) Textbooks in physics
53(091) History of physics
53(092) Biography of physicists
to get all these books under alphabetical order within a single class in
a larger library
53 Physics
If so did this make the life of library staff and users easier?
Was this of any advantage
I would really appreciate any opinion based on the experience.
Especially, all bad experiences in using UDC for shelving :-)
Aida
This message is for the addressee only and may contain privileged or
confidential information. If you have received it in error, please
notify
the sender immediately and delete the original. Any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent
those of IDS.
Institute of Development Studies
at the University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE
Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261; Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202
IDS, a charitable company limited by guarantee:
Registered Charity No. 306371; Registered in England 877338; VAT No. GB
350
899914
|
