Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification: Difference between revisions
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 03:52, 23 January 2007
There should be a mention of what the other modern systems are...
The Isaac Asimov comment seems unlikely. Someone should try to disprove it. Superm401 02:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not true. He doesn't have any books in the Philosophy section. This is documented all over the place, including as an early sentence in Wikipedia's own entry on Asimov. I'm going to remove it. --Plumpy 08:09, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- No, but he does have a video... -- see this post from 025.431: The Dewey Blog. --zenohockey 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits
I just added a few headers to break up the article in sections, since the text was already a bit long. This highlited some interesting facts which were buried in the final paragraphs. I also moved the description of the ten classes towards the beginning of the text, due to it's importance in illustrating how the DDC works.
Website
Does anyone know if there's a website where you can put in a book's ISBN number and it will tell you the Dewey call number for that book? Because I could really go for one of those. Thanks. -Branddobbe, May 16, 2005
- I have asked my librarian and she tells me:
- "all libraries tend to be a little bit different in their assignment of Dewey and some don't use the Dewey System at all. However, you can usually get a general Dewey number that will allow you to at least browse around at that number eg 624.1513 for soil mechanics. However, the exact number will depend on the person cataloguing and the nature of the collection - it is a bit flexible."
- So it looks like such a website would not work.--Commander Keane 06:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Your local library's online catalog should be able to do this for you. For example, try www.sdcl.org
- The Library of Congress catalog's website (catalog.loc.gov) is probably the closest you can get; if it doesn't work for a particular ISBN, try the ISBN for an earlier (or hardcover) edition. For example, search 0141439475 under "LCCN-ISBN-ISSN," then, on the resulting page, click "Full Record" and look for "Dewey Class No." --zenohockey 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for edit
The opinion that the DDC is inferior to other systems of classification doesn't really have a place in the encyclopedia entry. The DDC is ideal for certain types of collections, just as the LCCS is ideal for others. The DDC is, in fact, superior in some instances in terms of categorization and ease of browsing. I'm not the person to change this, but someone should.
Linking the classes with square brackets
Shall I intelligently link the listed classes to their relevant articles with squre brackets, or will it be reversed? --81.105.251.160 06:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean to create articles on each of the ten classes or just links to the subjects represented by the classes? Either way, not sure it is a good idea. Pages about each of the classes would be to much detail when there is link at the bottom where you can get that info. Subject links might be confusing because people would associate the subjects with the classes, which is not completely the case. Nowimnthing 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would probably not be useful since users come here to learn about the Dewey Decimal System, not the subjects. If they wanted to browse Wikipedia articles DDC order, then they would go here. GUllman 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The Book?
Ever since I started getting into the DDC, I always wondered what was up with 002. What the heck does it mean when 002 is listed as being "The book"? Phauge 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Books about books (the history of printing and bookmaking, things like that,) perhaps? That's a guess, but I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find an explanation. That's what I've always assumed it meant, though. - Square pear 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's my understanding. People frequently refer to books in general using the definite article (e.g., "art and history of the book"). --Benjamin Mako Hill (talk•contribs) 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked up some "books about books" and their DDC numbers did indeed begin with "002". LaMona 01:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's my understanding. People frequently refer to books in general using the definite article (e.g., "art and history of the book"). --Benjamin Mako Hill (talk•contribs) 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio?
Is the list in the article (which might be better on a seperate list page) a possible violation of a database copyright (as the article itself says copyright is claimed on the system)? I think it could be fair use as it is difficult to talk about DDC in an encyclopedia without including a copy of the system. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- OCLC has a PDF on its web site that gives the DDC numbers for the first 3 digits of DDC. In their contract, they say that libraries can display the first 3 digits to the public, but no more. So I think this is the allowed portion and therefore there isn't a problem. LaMona 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
More expressive?
The article claims that that the DDC is "more expressive" than the LoC system. Why is this? Is expressive being used as a term of art here? If so, it deserves an explanation. If not, it seems POV. --mako 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)