Hello Aida and list members,

I'm not clear how other things could go into 4 if 4 = Medicine. Or are you thinking that 41 could be medicine and 42, 43 etc used for other subjects?  In that case the medicine numbers will be just as long as they are now  (though I admit that 61 can then be used to help with other areas of technology).

My point about similarity with Dewey is that most UK public libraries use Dewey and therefore that is what I learned first.  I know where my favourite subjects are in Dewey, so if I go into a library using UDC I know to some extent where to start looking.  Of course many UDC libraries are special so similarity at the top level isn't so relevant.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Aida Slavic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 06 February 2003 12:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UDC Class 4


Hi,

It may be worth looking into the latest MRF statistics Caren Apers
provided few weeks ago.This may help to estimate the pressure on the class
6.

Common auxiliaries 11,378
Class 0 1794
Class 1 824
Class 2 2210
Class 3 7260
Class 5 11,175
Class 6 27,853
Class 7 2633
Class 8 616
Class 9 406
Total 66,149

Medicine, itself, has 3,158 and it is likely to be slightly bigger after
revision.

Obviously, moving Medicine from 6 would free some space for engineering.

Although, as it is well known, one of the reason why 62/69 classes take so
much space is the amount of excessive enumeration and repeating which is
likely to be gradually corrected through revision process. Many of these classes
are in a desperate need of revision. The only reason this is not addressed
is the lack of resources and time. Emptying 61 will certainly help here.

Different question is the one about class 4 with Medicine in it, and what
it is going to mean from the point of the logical sequence and from the
point of view of the economy of distribution? Apart from 3000 concepts of
Medicine, what else is going to be there? Are there any long-term plans in
this respect?

Medicine as a very distinct field. It may not surprise users to find
Medicine in the very base of classification at class 4, at a very first
glance on the structure, rather than to look for it under 6 Applied
sciences. UDC has such a small base of 10 classes. In my opinion the
sequence and 'expectancy' does not play any major role in practical use of
the UDC although it is an important issue in theory and history of the
classification systems.

Once medicine is going to be revised libraries will choose whether to
follow it or not and this will going to be based on their general policy
towards following UDC revisions. Those who follow will find it easier to
move everything to 4 than to fiddle with longer and very similar numbers in 61.

Andrew's point of concordance with Dewey is a good one. However this may
also be argued 50 years after the initial concordance was disrupted
by emptying class 4. Recently, for instance, UDC Management was placed
at 005, where it clearly coincides with Dewey Computer class.
It does not appear that UDC Editorial has any commitment or defined
policy in that respect. Also it is not certain that, for
UDC users and Dewey users, this similarity has any practical importance.
Easy mapping to Dewey would be useful and may be essential for the future
of the UDC but keeping medicine in 61 will not make it easier, especially
not after UDC Medicine will be revised to become fully faceted. Mapping to
Dewey needs to be solved on the level of an application
tool rather than on the rough similarity of the notation.

I, personally, don't see big reasons not to relocate Medicine to 4.
I don't see this to be an obstacle for Andrew's suggestion to put some
other classes there. It would be useful to consider possible candidates
in some long term planning: Psychology?, environmental sciences?


Aida Slavic