论文部分内容阅读
指出俞芙蓉所谓《中国图书馆分类法》(第四版)“D925.11/.7各种诉讼法”二次仿分的困惑,实际上是由于自身认识理解上的偏差,而非分类法的问题。因为“D921/925”中的仿分顺序是确定的;不仿“D915.1/.18”分,直接仿“D921/925”的专类复分表分,需加“0”是没有疑义的;仿“D915.1/.18”分中的仿分取号范围也是明确的。
It points out that the confusion caused by Yu Furong’s so-called “Chinese Library Classification” (Fourth Edition) “D925.11 / .7 various procedural law” second imitation points is actually due to his own understanding of the deviation of understanding, rather than taxonomy The problem. Because “D921 / 925” in the order of the sub-points is to determine; not imitation “D915.1 / .18” points directly imitate the “D921 / 925” special sub-table points, plus “0” is no doubt ; Imitation “D915.1 / .18” points in the range of Idiation is also clear.