Classification of Resources III: Research Library Schemes

Classification Definitions

• Classification - the act of organizing a body of knowledge into a systematic order
• In libraries: the systematic arrangement by subject of books and other materials on shelves, or of catalog and index entries, in a manner that is most useful to those who read or those who seek a definite piece of information.
• Shelving device
• Organization device

Characteristic of a Classification System

• Inclusive and comprehensive
• Systematic
• Flexible and expansive (i.e. hospitable)
• Employ terminology that is clear and descriptive
• Indexed

Classified Shelf Arrangement of Books

• Collocating objective: bringing like things together on library shelves:
• Subject criterion: But what about books on multiple topics?
• Author criterion: But what about books by multiple authors?
• Need a system for the unique identification of resources in open stack libraries through the use of notational systems and call numbers.

Notational Systems

• Notation marks (aka "classmarks") represent a book's subject class, including its relation to other subject classes in a classification scheme.
• Most common types:
• Pure - e.g., DDC employs Arabic numerals
• Mixed - e.g., LCC employs an alpha-numeric notation
• Mnemonics:
• Repeating class notation patterns throughout classification
• This technique is also used in the MaRC system

Shelf Arrangement and Sub-arrangement

• Library classification schemes provide:
• A systematic method for shelf arrangement in open stack libraries
• A systematic method for sub-arrangement within each class
• To accomplish this goal, catalogers synthesize (i.e. create) class numbers to represent the subject of a book
• This process remains transparent to the user (i.e. the user is more interested int he fact that books are collocated on the shelf rather than how the numbers were determined.

Cuttering to Create a Call Number

• Used to create call numbers (UIs) for individual library collections.
• Provides the link between the surrogate record an the actual item in the collection
• Provides for both subject and non-subject (e.g. author) oriented sub-arrangement in open stack libraries. 
• After the class notation is determined, then the cuttering process begins.
• Use a cutter table:
• There may be more than one cutter table floating around!
• Cuttering is a flexible process; only use table as a guide
• Steps for cuttering:
• Determine the first letter of main entry (most often taken from 100 tag; but could be 245 tag)
• Use number associated with second letter of main entry
• Add additional numbers until call number is unique 
• Add date
• You may have 1 or 2 cutter numbers, BUT you may never have 3.
• In the LCC, cuttering instructions are given in the schedules:
• Assists in topical, geographical and other non-main entry-based sub-arrangement
• Occasionally, this involves double cuttering, thus precluding the use of main entry-based cutters. 

LCC - General Points

• Mixed notations
• All letters are not used (reserved for expansion)
• Subject specialists develop and maintain the class schedules, rather than centralized editors as is the case with the DDC.
• Designed to meet the needs of the collection of the Library of Congress.
• Based on literary warrant: Schedules developed with reference to what has been published. 
• Hierarchical; however, NOT reflected in notation. 
• LCC Classification outline:
• Divided into main classes according to academic discipline or areas of study and then into sub-classes representing branches of those disciplines
• Larger range of letters for History (C-G) and Social Sciences (H-L)
• Numericals used range from 1-9999 with frequent gaps

LCC is Essentially Enumerative

• Aspects of subjects are explicitly provided for (i.e. enumerated) in the schedules:
• More "pigeonholes" created in advance to represent very specific topics and topical aspects.
• However, tables are also used to synthesize complex class notations (not as often as with the DDC)
• As an enumerative classification, the LCC schedules are more voluminous than many other schemes:
• 50 volumes
• 10,000 pages.

Consistent Structuring: Martel's 7 points

• Initially, Charles Martel provided basis for consistent structuring across divisions:
• General forms: periodicals, societies, dictionaries, etc
• Theory, Philosophy
• History
• Treatises, General works
• Law, Regulations, State relations (now relocated to K)
• Study and teaching
• Special subjects and their subdivision from general to specific

LCC has Many Editors 

• LCC has been referred to as a series of special classifications (though compare with NLM)
• However, individual LCC schedules are structured identically:
• Preface
• Broad outline
• Detailed outline
• The schedule, itself
• Any necessary, auxiliary tables
• Detailed index

Revising LCC with Topic Subdivisions

• Constitute the bulk of the expansion of classes and subclasses
• EXAMPLE: Women Suffrage in U.S. (JK1880)
• Note geographical subdivision of "Women's Suffrage. Women's right to vote" - in this case, cutter by location
• Also note geographic subdivision under subtopic "Biography"

Procedures for Revision and Expansion

• Proposals for changes originate with LC catalogers:
• Anomalies
• New topics
• Some methods for expansion:
• Using unused letters (I, O,W, X and Y)
• Adding a third letter (or sometimes a fourth)
• Extending existing numbers decimally
• Expanding use of cuttering

General Steps for Classifying with LCC

• Because of disciplinary aspects of LCC, first check for appropriate schedule to match subject of item in hand and then determine the best class number within the selected schedule. 
• Class item in hand with similar works:
• Consult existing records
• Consult class numbers mapped from assigned LCSH
• Consult LCC outlines

Classifying General Works

• Under most numbers with subdivisions, a number is designated for "general works."

Classifying Works on Single Topics

• Always use the most specific class number that is co-extensive with the subject matter of the work.
• If no co-extensive number exists, then the next appropriate broader number should be used. 

Classifying Works by Time Period

• For works treating a topic with regard to a particular time period. For those works spanning two periods use earliest. 
• DC History of France:
• DC725 Earliest to 1515
• DC727 16th century
• DC729 17th-18th century
• DC731 1789-1815
• DC733 1815-1870
• DC735 1871-1914
• DC736 1914-1921
• DC737 1922-

Multi-Faceted Single Topic Works

• Works covering multiple facets of a single topic.
• If available, use a class number representing all facets:
• Idea of the English landscape painter: genius as Alibi in the eary ninetheenth century by Kay Dian Kriz
• ND1354.5.K75 1997
• If number covering all facets is not available, go with the emphasized or more prominent facet:
• Elizabethan mineatures, by Carl Winter
• ND1337.G7.W5 1955

Classifying Works on Multiple Topics

• A work on two or three topics treated equally:
• Use number for the topic treated first
• QD412.A7 C53 1994 - Chemistry of organic arsenic, antimony, and bismuth compounds
• A work on four or more topics:
• Use a general number that encompasses all numbers chosen
• RA566.3.C48 1992 - Changing U.S. health care; a study of four metropolitan areas

Classifying Works with Phase Relations

• A work covering the relationship between two topics is classed in the most specific number covering the relationship:
• QK46.5.H85 P66 2001 - Botany of desire; a plant's eye view of the world
• QK46.5.H85 - Botany > Human-plant relationship
• A work covering the influence of one topic on another is classed with the topic being influenced:
• LA2317.T8 M3 1899x - Henry Tutwiler and the influence of the University of Virginia on education in Alabama
• LA2317.T8 - History of U.S. Education > Individual biography

Cuttering for Geographical Aspects

• Geographical cuttering option is often available in parts of the schedules:
• Use either general or specialized cutter table
• EXAMPLE:
• Visual Arts Education:
• N353.A-W - General works in Visual Arts in U.S.
• N354.A-Z - General works in Visual Arts in a state
• N355.A-Z - General works in Visual arts in a city

Cuttering Sub-topics - "Reserve Cutters"

• Cuttering by topical aspect is also sometimes available - this is termed "reserve cuttering"
• Style, Composition, Rhetoric:
• P301 - General Works
• P301.3.A-Z - General Works by region or country
• P301.5.A-Z - Special Aspects A-Z
• P301.5.134 - Idioms
• P301.5.P73 - Propoganda

Article Summary for Lecture # 8 - Knowlton

Three Decades Since

Prejudices and Antipathies:

A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings

              The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) have been criticized for containing biased subject headings. Knowlton, in his study, reviews critiques of the LCSH, and performs a study to see the extent of which they have changed since suggested edits have been proposed. 

        Since the first publication in 1909, critics have questioned the choice of terms, the subject structure, and the inconsistency with which subject headings are formulated. However, regardless of the critiques or objections, the LCSH has solidified itself as the primary thesaurus for controlled vocabulary searching in libraries. The first of these critiques was raised in the late 1960s, and critics since contend that certain subject headings (i.e. those identifying groups of people) "perpetuate the exclusionary cultural supremacy of the mainstream patriarchal, Euro-settler culture. 

       Professional LoC catalogers stand by the idea that "subject headings assigned to works in the catalog should be what a particular type of library patron would be most likely to search under - regardless of the notion of universal bibliographic control, to which the LoC is also committed." However, critics main objection lies in the identity of the "average" reader, who has been identified as American/Western European, Christian, white, heterosexual, and male - which does not accurately reflect the melting pot we live in. By using the language/perspective of a particular group of readers, instead of seeking neutral terms, LCSH can make materials hard to find for "minority" users and/or give the impression that certain points of view are normal, which makes others unusual. 

       In 1980, the LoC created a Racism and Sexism in Subject Analysis Subcommittee, which turned in a number of recommendations. Fortunately, the implementations of computerized catalogs in 1986 have made the process of changing headings much simpler, and thus the pace at which biased headings were changed quickened. Sanford Berman is recognized as the pioneer of updated LoC terminology. In his work Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People (P&A), he addressed these perceived biases and proposed alterations/deletions. Of course, there were those who expressed doubt/reservations stating that "the subject catalog is only an auxiliary tool to the much more sophisticated subject bibliographies" or that "the biased language of the headings merely reflects based on literature being cataloged."

       Knowlton examines the influence of Berman, and tries to calculate the changes to the LCSH since the publication of P&A. Berman himself estimates that no more than half of his suggestions have been adopted. The process of examination Knowlton follows is thus:

1. The current LCSH were searched, and any changes that have occurred were noted.
2. The volumes of Cataloging Service Bulletin since 1971 were skimmed to locate the date that changes were made. 

Knowlton found that out of the 225 suggested changes, 88 (39%) have been changed almost exactly as he suggested, an additional 54 (24%) have been changed in ways that partially reflect Berman's suggestion, and 80 (36%) of the items remain unchanged. Knowlton notes that most of those unchanged are subject headings pertaining to the Christian religion. However, the fact that since P&A it seems subject heading bias has been taken into serious consideration my LCSH compilers, and Knowlton says that should be seen as hopeful milestones towards providing equal access to all users.

       Knowlton's article and research are very interesting. If you are interested in minority/inequality studies this is a great article for you. It should also be relevant to any person working within the information organization field.  I'll reiterate a point I've made in several posts - our jobs as information organizers is to get information into the hands of patrons with little effort on their part. If we tailor organization to suit a populus that doesn't reflect our patron, something is wrong. The system should be tailored to help get quality information to the user regardless of orientation, gender, race, or religion. We still have a long way to go, but I'm with Knowlton on the idea that the progress we have seen is indicative on the ability and willingness to make things right, and with that kind of attitude we can do anything.

_________________________________________________________________________________
For more information or to see charts from Knowlton's research see the full article (citation below)!

Knowlton, S.A. (2005). Three decades since prejudices and antipathies: A study of changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40(2):123-45.