The Experts below are selected from a list of 36570 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Cari Merkley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the library of congress dewey decimal and universal decimal classification systems are incomplete and unsystematic
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2011Co-Authors: Cari MerkleyAbstract:Objective – To determine the extent to which knowledge is currently addressed by the Library of Congress (LCC), Dewey Decimal (DDC), and Universal Decimal (UDC) classification systems. Design – Comparative analysis of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems using Zin’s 10 Pillars of Knowledge. Setting – The Faculty of Philosophy and Science at a Brazilian university. Subjects – Forty one Subject-related classes and 386 subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Methods – To evaluate the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems, the researchers employed the 10 Pillars of Knowledge, a “hierarchical knowledge tree” developed by the lead author of this study (p. 878). According to the authors, the 10 Pillars of Knowledge seek to illustrate relationships between fields of knowledge while capturing their breadth. The first level of the Pillars consists of the following categories: Knowledge, Supernatural, Matter and Energy, Space and Earth, Nonhuman Organizations, Body and Mind, Society, Thought and Art, Technology, and History. Each of the 10 Pillars is further subdivided, resulting in a four level hierarchical structure of 76 categories. Of the 76 categories, 55 are unique Subject areas. A selection of Subject-based classes and subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems were then mapped to the relevant subclasses within the Pillars. Analysis was limited to the first two levels of LCC, DDC, and UDC, except for the LCC categories of BF and BL where further subclasses were analyzed. Classes or subclasses in LCC, DDC, or UDC that were not Subject based (for example, those based on publication type) were excluded from the study. In total, 41 main classes and 386 subclasses from LLC, DDC, and UDC were categorized using the 10 Pillars. Main Results – The LLC, DDC, and UDC systems were deemed to be complete and systematic in their Coverage of only three of the 10 Pillars: Matter and Energy, Thought and Art, and History. This means that there was at least one class or subclass in each of the three systems that corresponded to the subclasses in these pillars. The remaining seven pillars were only partially covered by the three systems to varying degrees. For example, the Coverage of religion in LCC and DDC show evidence of a bias towards Christianity and incomplete Coverage of other faiths. In addition to the lack of completeness in terms of Subject Coverage, the researchers found inconsistencies and problems with how relationships between Subjects were illustrated by the systems. For example, botany should be a subclass of biology, but the Subjects occupy the same level in the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Researchers also noted cases where subclasses on the same level were not mutually exclusive e.g., the BR (Christianity) and BS (The Bible) subclasses in LCC. Overall, LLC performed slightly better than DDC or UDC, covering 47 of the 55 unique Subject categories in the 10 Pillars. It was followed by UDC with 44 out of 55, and DDC with 43 out of 55. Some of the 55 unique Subject categories in the 10 Pillars system were not represented by any of the systems: 3 subclasses under Society (Society at Large – Area Based, Social Groups – Age, and Social Groups – Ethnicity), 2 under Technology (Technologies – Materials and Technologies – Processes), and 1 under Foundations (Methodology). Conclusion – The researchers conclude that none of the three major classification systems analyzed provides complete and systematic Coverage of the world of knowledge, and call for the library community to move to new systems, such as the 10 Pillars of Knowledge.
-
The Library of Congress, Dewey Decimal, and Universal Decimal Classification Systems are Incomplete and Unsystematic. A Review of: Zins, C., & Santos, P. L. V. A. C. (2011). Mapping the knowledge covered by library classification systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 877-901. doi:10.1002/asi.21481
University of Alberta, 2011Co-Authors: Cari MerkleyAbstract:Objective – To determine the extent to which knowledge is currently addressed by the Library of Congress (LCC), Dewey Decimal (DDC), and Universal Decimal (UDC) classification systems.Design – Comparative analysis of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems using Zin’s 10 Pillars of Knowledge.Setting – The Faculty of Philosophy and Science at a Brazilian university.Subjects – Forty one Subject-related classes and 386 subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems.Methods – To evaluate the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems, the researchers employed the 10 Pillars of Knowledge, a “hierarchical knowledge tree” developed by the lead author of this study (p. 878). According to the authors, the 10 Pillars of Knowledge seek to illustrate relationships between fields of knowledge while capturing their breadth. The first level of the Pillars consists of the following categories: Knowledge, Supernatural, Matter and Energy, Space and Earth, Nonhuman Organizations, Body and Mind, Society, Thought and Art, Technology, and History. Each of the 10 Pillars is further subdivided, resulting in a four level hierarchical structure of 76 categories. Of the 76 categories, 55 are unique Subject areas. A selection of Subject-based classes and subclasses from the first two levels of the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems were then mapped to the relevant subclasses within the Pillars. Analysis was limited to the first two levels of LCC, DDC, and UDC, except for the LCC categories of BF and BL where further subclasses were analyzed. Classes or subclasses in LCC, DDC, or UDC that were not Subject based (for example, those based on publication type) were excluded from the study. In total, 41 main classes and 386 subclasses from LLC, DDC, and UDC were categorized using the 10 Pillars.Main Results – The LLC, DDC, and UDC systems were deemed to be complete and systematic in their Coverage of only three of the 10 Pillars: Matter and Energy, Thought and Art, and History. This means that there was at least one class or subclass in each of the three systems that corresponded to the subclasses in these pillars. The remaining seven pillars were only partially covered by the three systems to varying degrees. For example, the Coverage of religion in LCC and DDC show evidence of a bias towards Christianity and incomplete Coverage of other faiths. In addition to the lack of completeness in terms of Subject Coverage, the researchers found inconsistencies and problems with how relationships between Subjects were illustrated by the systems. For example, botany should be a subclass of biology, but the Subjects occupy the same level in the LCC, DDC, and UDC systems. Researchers also noted cases where subclasses on the same level were not mutually exclusive e.g., the BR (Christianity) and BS (The Bible) subclasses in LCC. Overall, LLC performed slightly better than DDC or UDC, covering 47 of the 55 unique Subject categories in the 10 Pillars. It was followed by UDC with 44 out of 55, and DDC with 43 out of 55. Some of the 55 unique Subject categories in the 10 Pillars system were not represented by any of the systems: 3 subclasses under Society (Society at Large – Area Based, Social Groups – Age, and Social Groups – Ethnicity), 2 under Technology (Technologies – Materials and Technologies – Processes), and 1 under Foundations (Methodology).Conclusion – The researchers conclude that none of the three major classification systems analyzed provides complete and systematic Coverage of the world of knowledge, and call for the library community to move to new systems, such as the 10 Pillars of Knowledge
Dimitris Rousidis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of metadata in research data repositories the case of the dc Subject element
Metadata and Semantics Research, 2015Co-Authors: Dimitris Rousidis, Emmanouel Garoufallou, Panos Balatsoukas, Miguelangel SiciliaAbstract:Research Data repositories are growing in terms of volume rapidly and exponentially. Their main goal is to provide scientists the essential mechanism to store, share, and re-use datasets generated at various stages of the research process. Despite the fact that metadata play an important role for research data management in the context of these repositories, several factors - such as the big volume of data and its complex lifecycles, as well as operational constraints related to financial resources and human factors - may impede the effectiveness of several metadata elements. The aim of the research reported in this paper was to perform a descriptive analysis of the DC.Subject metadata element and to identify its data quality problems in the context of the Dryad research data repository. In order to address this aim a total of 4.557 packages and 13.638 data files were analysed following a data-preprocessing method. The findings showed emerging trends about the Subject Coverage of the repository (e.g. the most popular Subjects and the authors that contributed the most for these Subjects). Also, quality problems related to the lack of controlled vocabulary and standardisation were very common. This study has implications for the evaluation of metadata and the improvement of the quality of the research data annotation process.
Lee, Tae Hee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation of online database selection criteria in electronic scholarly online database: a case study of online databases for business disciplinary in UW-Milwaukee
2021Co-Authors: Lee, Tae HeeAbstract:The academic library has been supported students', and faculties' research works by increasing collections and adding online resources or databases. However, a budget of an academic library has struggled with a shortage. There are hundreds of databases globally, and they have a tremendous number of records, but it would be hard to say that those are a proper database for faculty and students. In this environment, providing a suitable database with limited budget restrictions is very important in the academic library. This study aims to analyze online database criteria such as the data elements in bibliographic records and search features of the online database website for finding proper selection criteria by disciplinary. The study will examine traditional factors of online dataset selection such as size, Subject Coverage, time span, currency, title query test, searching feature of the website, and also data elements in bibliographic records. Those criteria will apply current business online databases in UW-Milwaukee and extract the similarity and differences among databases. As a result, this poster will report on a pilot study to understand which criteria are valuable to use and how academic libraries can apply selection criteria for finding a proper online database by disciplinary
Gohain, Rashmi Rekha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Status of Global Research Data Repository: An Exploratory Study
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2021Co-Authors: Gohain, Rashmi RekhaAbstract:re3data.org registry is a research data repository and provides information seekers, publishers, libraries and funding organizations an overview of the diverse research data repositories internationally. Under the FAIR Data project and with the ‘CoreTrustSeal’ certification, re3data is an amiable platform for the researchers to upload and retrieve research data through their appropriate domain repositories. The re3data.org registry of data repository services is explored and relevant data related to general profile, access policies, restriction and licenses, content types, Subject Coverage and other related services has been collected and analysed in this research study. The study found that, United States has the highest number of data repositories (1102) followed by Germany (433) and United Kingdom (296). India is in 11th position with 51 repositories. Among the repositories, 2059 were disciplinary, 671 were institutional and 291 were of other types. 2574 (42.37%) of the listed institutions were with general responsibility for content development and management of the associated repository followed by 1812 (29.83%) of the institutions as technical host and 1616 (26.60%) as funding institution for the repository. On the other hand, only 1.18% were sponsoring institutions. There was total 135 commercial and 2586 non-profit organisations for the funding of the research data repositories
Sahoo, Dr. Jyotshna - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Comparative Study of India and Australia Open Access Repositories in OpenDOAR
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2021Co-Authors: Karadia Alekha, Sahoo, Dr. JyotshnaAbstract:An open access repository or open archive is a digital platform that holds research output and provides free, immediate, and permanent access to research results for anyone to use, download and distribute. To facilitate open access such repositories must be interoperable according to the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). Search engines harvest the content of open access repositories, constructing a database of worldwide, free of charge available research. OpenDOAR is the quality-assured, global Directory of Open Access Repositories. Its repositories provide free, open access to academic outputs and resources. This paper deals with Comparative analysis of India and Australia repositories listed in OpenDOAR in terms of their growth, type, operational status, content type, software, Subject Coverage, language, and policies regarding content, submission, and preservatio
