Page 9 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 43

FAN Bingsi / A review of the theory of Library Science in China: 1956-2016 009

ratio and circulation”, “coordinating acquisition of books and periodicals and avoiding unnecessary
copies” (Deng, 1957). Both the research scope and level surpassed those in the New Library
Movement.
Although the study on union catalog had made great progress or even great breakthrough from
the perspective of history of Chinese Library Science, the gap between home and abroad was not
narrowed in the context of international Library Science. After World War II, the most important
change in resource sharing was the shift from sharing to co-construction and sharing. The
Farmington Plan implemented in 1948 was the most significant achievement. By co-acquisition,
union catalog and inter-library loan, the plan realized the supply of resources within limited
expenditure. Because library scientists at home failed to acquire the latest development in resources
sharing and could not provide more advanced ideas and policies, the National Books Coordinate
Scheme was compiled under the guidance of Soviet experts. Depending on administrative orders,
the scheme attempted to allocate books to realize the optimized layout of resources, which was
much more inferior to the Farmington Plan. The shining points contributed by Mao Kun and so on
in union catalog were totally overwhelmed by the flaw.

1.3 Library classification

Study on library classification after 1949 had been highly approved. After the founding of the
People’s Republic of China, new library classifications were compiled. Since the new ideology was
established, the classification must be adjusted and revised and principles of revision should also
be discussed. For example, Du Dingyou (1951) elaborated on that “classification outline should be
determined according to Marxism-Leninism.” After 1957 more discussions were focused on the
theory and practice of library classification which became a hotspot. Interested in the principles
of compiling library classification, Zhang Defang (1957) discussed “library classification and
academic classification”, “objective principle” and “developmental principle”, revealing the
rational faculty scarcely observed in that age. Some scholars were interested in technical issues of
library classification. For example, Wang Jiarong (1958) discussed books’ shelving. He compared
the advantages and disadvantages of shelving according to authors, titles and alphabetic order.
He proposed to “shelve in accordance with requirement of scientific and systematic arrangement
of books”. Mao Kun’s (1957) study on title catalog questioned that library classification “lagged
behind reality”. Du Dingyou (1962) suggested “making full use of alphabetic order and developing
new classification and subject catalog”, which led to discussion over future direction.
The above studies done by Zhang Defang, Mao Kun and Du Dingyou had made some progress.
Actually, study on library classification had attained a fairly high level during the 1930s, such
as Zi Yuan’s comparative studies on Dewey and Library of Congress classification, Wang
Xiaochu’s comparative studies on Dewey and Cutter classification and Hu Yanjun’s study on
colon classification. From 1957 to 1966 library scientists did not do well in continuing these