Content deleted Content added
ScribeMonk (talk | contribs) →Use and criticism: Punctuation Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
ScribeMonk (talk | contribs) →Use and criticism: Corrected suffix Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 78:
The main difference between DDC and LCC is their approach to classifying. Dewey's system is a comprehensive classification to all topics, with no regard to the actual collections a library might hold. While this has allowed it to be successfully adapted into more modern classification systems for use outside of libraries, such as the [[Universal Decimal Classification]] (UDC),<ref>"A Brief Introduction to the Dewey Decimal Classification". OCLC. Archived from the original on May 3, 2013. Retrieved November 16, 2013.</ref> it does make it more unwieldy for large or specialized collections. On the other hand, Hanson and Martel designed LCC specifically for library use, which means while it does not completely enumerate the world, it does more reflect what books a library might hold.<ref name=":6" />
Because LCC was designed around the collections of the Library of Congress, it has an American, European, and Christian bias, as reflected mainly in the earlier developed schedules of D (World History), E and F (History of the Americas), and B (Philosophy, Psychology, Religion). On the other hand, the later-developed K (Law) gives fairly even weight to global law.<ref name=":0" /> Today, the various schedules are maintained and revised by the Library's Policy and Standards Division, in conjunction with experts in each field. However,
Like all classification systems, LCC struggles with catering to interdisciplinary scholars and topics, as ultimately, a book can only be shelved in a single location.<ref name=":5" /> Additionally, LCC has a problem with "othering" marginalized groups, making works related to or authored by members of these groups particularly difficult to locate.<ref name=":5" /> This is not a new issue, and libraries with more specialized collections about minority groups or issues sometimes eschew LCC,<ref name=":5" /> with one example alternative classification being the [[Harvard–Yenching Classification]], specifically developed for Chinese language materials.
| |||