- From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:44:59 +0100
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B6339D3F-BA2B-4EE9-A376-05E5AD000117@deri.org>
Andrew Pace's blog has a nice quote from Ranganathan, 1951: "A little reflection will show how irrational it is to argue that because we had been doing something in a particular way in the past and any changeover means trouble, cost etc., we should rule out all attempts to change. This argument will tie all future to a year of the past. That is not the way in which the world grows. The industries themselves do not grow that way. A costly machinery of 1949 is scrapped in 1950 to give place to a totally new design because it is more efficient. The industries do not hesitate to finance such a change-over. On the other hand they know that they will suffer if they do not change-over. The industries should take a similar view of the machinery of library classification also and provide the finance necessary to rebuild it. The library profession too should become more aware of the crumbling of the present foundations of classification, which still rest on arbitrary numbering at bottom, and put up a case for a re-design of the foundations in the light of the factors which led to its break-down and the methods of research and growth which prevail now and are likely to prevail in the future as far as they can be foreseen leading to new formations in the field of knowledge." That's from Philosophy of Library Classification (http://worldcat.org/oclc/1409443)." http://blogs.ala.org/pace.php?title=an_unerring_eye_for_the_inessential&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#c8214 Jake on Andrew Pace's blog -Jodi
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 21:45:16 UTC