Lily and I have been discussing this off-list and I've sent her the 
information I've collated for the GSA Library's reclassification project.

I'll just put in my two bits worth regarding DDC vs UDC (I've had only 
limited experience of LC in an arts setting).

UDC is great for the professional cataloguer trying to find the most 
intellectually satisfying classification for a book. Also, once you have 
the correct class no. on a book, you can look at the class no. to tell you 
what the book's about. That's IF you can remember what all the punctuations 
mean!

However, for shelving it and for library users trying to find books 
classified with it, it is not so good. Even staff who've worked with it for 
years forget which order the many punctuation marks are supposed to go in. 
It's even worse for the library user trying to find something. It looks 
like gobbledygook to the untrained eye, and most people's experience with a 
decimal class system is with DDC, so they are expecting to see three 
digits, then a decimal point, then more digits. UDC is hard to follow with 
the eye along a shelf because of this. Also, UDC shelves like this: 550.2; 
77.01; 770.24 etc.; most people think that 77.01 should come BEFORE 550.2. 
If you were going to use a simplified version to get rid of the punctuation 
problem, my feeling is you might as well use DDC.

Another issue with the complex punctuation etc., is that UDC is therefore 
not very disability friendly, for the visually impaired AND the dyslexic.

It also DOESN'T make up for any of the shortfalls in DDC. Although I 
haven't yet had a look at the most recent edition, we are working with the 
1964 edition here. I've had an e-mail from the Editor in Chief at UDC which 
claims that UDC has a much better class 7 revision than DDC or LC, so I'll 
be looking at that.

DDC is familiar to many people. It appears in most union catalogue records 
so if you're buying your records in this saves time. It's true that it's 
coverage of arts is probably it's weakest area, but I've yet to see a 
system that does contemporary art any better. I would love to find one, 
believe me! Is anyone actually using the more recent UDC class 7? What's it 
like?

I have a personal prejudice against LC, because my cataloguer brain finds 
it internally inconsistent (i.e., with DDC or UDC, you know that, say, 941 
always means Great Britain). However, having had a look at the Courtauld's 
use of the N schedules I'm no longer completely ruling it out!

Regards,

Ms. Sarah Currier
Acting Architecture Librarian
Glasgow School of Art Library
167 Renfrew Street
Glasgow G3 6RQ
Scotland, UK
Tel: +44 (0)141 353 4696
Fax: +44 (0)141 353 4670
Mobile: 07980 855 801
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.gsa.ac.uk/

-----Original Message-----
From:	Lily Maitland [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:	18 October 2000 10:52
To:	ARLIS-Link-messages
Subject:	Dewey versus UDC or LC schedule N

Dear All,
Following on from Sarah Currier's message to the list a few days ago, I 
would like to add that I too am interested to know the advantages and 
disadvantages of applying UDC or LC schedule N to a particular collection - 
that of Manchester City Art Gallery, where I am currently doing a project 
to consider improving access to a currently unclassified collection.
If you can give me any advice in this regard, it would be appreciated.  In 
return, I can tell you that Dewey is far from ideal and the relevant 
article to read is from the ARLIS news sheet number 88 entitled ARLIS and 
Dewey, where the main problems (up to Dewey 20) are listed. These problems 
appear to be largely unresolved by version 21.
Finally, are there any other classification schemes in use out there which 
might be suitable for this application and where are they please?
Thanks!
Lilian Maitland,
Manchester Central Library,
St. Peter's Square,
M2 5PD
Tel: 0161 234 1999
Fax: 0161 236 6230
e-mail: [log in to unmask]


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
[log in to unmask]

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.


**********************************************************************
 << File: ATT00003.html >>  << File: ATT00004.gif >> 



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%