This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This list is organized by DDC call numbers -- shouldn't there be an equivalent page organized by LCC call numbers? --Mdotley 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The columns in this table were made sortable by Tompw. Note the small quadsected squares in the column titles. Bejnar 16:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is still a subtle bias in favour of the DCC... the list includes all DCC classes down to the third level (i.e. most of the 1,000 possible three-digit classes ), but not the equvilant number of the LCC version (i.e two letters, possibly plus one digit). Also, some of the DCC-->LCC mapping isn't great - many three-digit DCC classes are just assigned a single LCC letter class. Tompw (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately or unfortunately, there is not one to one correspondence between the classifications. --Bejnar 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true... look at DDC 551 for an example. However, that doesn't stop the list being useful. Tompw (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Library of Congress Classification system is also more complicated to use on an ad hoc basis without reference to the collection of the Library of Congress, and unlike DDC cannot be customised for the needs of a smaller library collection. Likewise, with the standardisation of LCC as a product for the preclassification of materials before they are accessioned there is little incentive for librarians to do their own classification of a work, even a work that was obviously classified erroneously by the Library of Congress. This has lead to a "homogenisation" and lack of vigour in the presentation of collections (and especially specialised collections) to the library patron.
I removed this text from the DDC article. I've also pasted this into the talk page on the LCC page where, perhaps, it will be more on topic but feel free to work it out here if people think that's more useful. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not appropriate for this article. Additionally it is definitively POV and is uncited. This article is about a comparison of the subject classifications, it is not about the systems, their use or their impact. --Bejnar 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)