Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:18:41.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classification schemes in art libraries in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Sarah Currier
Sarah Currier*
Affiliation:
Centre for Digital Library Research, Andersonian Library, University of Strathclyde, 101 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0NS, UK
*
E-mail: sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Subject access to physical or electronic resource collections can be divided into two complementary areas: searching and browsing. Searching involves the use of subject headings, indexing terms from a controlled vocabulary, or natural language keywords. Browsing, whether along a shelf or through a subject tree on the Web, requires the application of some kind of taxonomy or classification scheme. This article looks at what class schemes art libraries are using to arrange their book collections in the UK today. Based on an informal survey via the ARLIS e-mail discussion list, it appears that the Dewey Decimal Classification is not only the most commonly used class scheme, but the one most art libraries choose when they reclassify their library.

Type
Meeting Report
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , 2002 , pp. 18 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Olson, Hope A. ‘Universal models: a history of the organization of knowledge’. Advances in knowledge organization vol. 4: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Organization and Quality Management. Frankfurt: INDEKSVerlag, 1994, p.72–80.Google Scholar
2. Kwasnik, Barbara H. ‘The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery’. Library trends vol. 48 no. 1 Summer 1999, p.22–47.Google Scholar
3. Bowman, John. ‘ARLIS and Dewey’. ARLIS news-sheet no. 88 January/February 1991, p.2–3.Google Scholar
4. For information on libraries classifying web resources, see: McKiernan, Gerry. ‘Beyond bookmarks: a review of frameworks, features, and functionalities of schemes for organising the Web’. Internet reference services quarterly vol. 3 no. 1 1998, p.69–77. For information on classifying images, see the web site of the Institute for Image Data Research at: http://www.unn.ac.uk/iidr/ and the article: Graham, M.E. ‘The cataloguing and indexing of images: time for a new paradigm?’ Art libraries journal vol. 26 no. 1 2001, p.22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Currier, Sarah. Re-classifying the Glasgow School of Art Library: a preliminary research report. Oct. 2000. Unpublished report. Contact John McKay for further information: Google Scholar
6. Watson, Kerry. Glasgow School of Art Library – reclassification: MSc/PG Diploma Information and Library Studies placement project. Unpublished. Contact Kerry Watson for further information: Google Scholar
7. CDLR web site: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ Google Scholar
8. ‘The High-Level Thesaurus project aims to research, report, and make recommendations on the problems of cross-searching and browsing by subject across a range of communities, services, and service or resource types’. HILT project web site http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/. For further details contact Nicholson, Dennis at: Google Scholar
9. Neither the GSA re-classification project, nor the HILT project, have been completed at the time of writing.Google Scholar
10. ADAM gateway to art, design, architecture and media information. Web site: http://adam.ac.uk/ Google Scholar
11. TALIS Information Limited web site: http://www.blcmp.org.uk/ Google Scholar
12. Dewey Decimal Classification and relative index. 21st ed. Albany, N.Y.: Forest Press, 1996.Google Scholar
13. British Standards Institution. Universal Decimal Classification. Pocket ed. London: BSI, 1999. (PD 1000: 1999)Google Scholar
14. Wake, Susannah. HILT stakeholder survey: results. Available on HILT web site at: http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/Reports/SurveyResults.html, or contact Nicholson, Dennis at: Google Scholar
15. For an interesting article about four American art libraries which developed their own in-house schemes, see: Ferrari, Roberto C. ‘The art of classification: alternate classification systems in art libraries’. Cataloging & classification quarterly vol. 28 no. 2 1999, p.73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. For a discussion on the wider issues around choosing subject access schemes in today’s online environment, see: Currier, Sarah and Wake, Susannah. Negotiating subject access: resource discovery on the Web. London: South Bank University, 2001. (Library & information briefings issue 97 May 2001).Google Scholar