Dewey Decimal Classification Today

 The Australia and New Zealand Theological Library Association conducts a Virtual Conference in September 2020. In keeping with convention, there is a Pre-Conference Cataloguing Workshop. The Workshop runs uninterrupted for a fortnight on the Association’s e-list, from Thursday the 27^th of August to the first morning of the ANZTLA Virtual Conference on Thursday the 10^th of September. On Day Two we looked at the Dewey Decimal Classification. Here are my opening words to the online discussion. 

Most of us work in libraries with an inherited classification system. This means that if we use Dewey, for example, we also inherit numbers and numbering processes that predate the current electronic WebDewey version. 

https://www.oclc.org/en/dewey/webdewey.html

 Differences in numbering for many books are therefore inevitable because 1) a library has developed ways of using Dewey, including in-house expansions of numbers, that are fixed practice, 2) classifying books by subject means cataloguers will place the emphasis on one main subject rather another, with the result that the same book can justifiably go in different parts of the collection, and 3) the classification numbers inside books and on databases are themselves not always consistent, and even offer a choice. Consistency across libraries is an impossibility, which is why we must acquaint ourselves with in-house practice in our own libraries and keep to the traditions of our own place. It is paramount to be consistent within our own collection. 

This is the case in my own library, where alterations to the standard 200s were done long ago with little thought for the internal logic of the subject arrangement. Added to this, the library has a General Collection and a separate Carmelitana Collection (first element of the call number is capital-C), both using modified Dewey, each with their own special expansions. This is why the numbers are of no earthly use to other cataloguers seeking authoritative Dewey numbers for their own collection; our evolved system is so in-house it is only authoritative within the four walls of that library.    

DDC 23 would seem to be the last print edition, after the editorial staff announced in 2017 that an English print edition would no longer be produced. My guess is that some of us use the latest WebDewey, others consult the much-annotated print version of one of our own Dewey editions, while others work between a print Dewey edition and the sheaves of precious expansions and changes in homemade manuals or computer files. But we still face similar daily issues, which I invite you to talk about here in the Workshop:

1.     Which online sites do you use to make your numbers?

2.     Or do you work from the book, with assistance from whatever online sites are available?

3.     How many numbers are justified after the decimal point before the purpose of the number is lost?

4.     How many libraries have made overhauls of their numbering to keep in line with Dewey changes, e.g. shifting general Religion numbers from the 290s to 200-219?

5.     How far can we justify expansions and alterations to the 200s?

6.     Do you invent new numbers for new subjects, rather than wait for WebDewey to come up with a number? Or must you invent a new number in order to fit the in-house Dewey system that has evolved over time?

7.     Which subjects are currently causing headaches due to lack of an appropriate number?

8.     Do the Schedules’ inherent biases or emphases, reflective of a worldview a century ago, cause problems for you in today’s subject classifying?

9.     Is WebDewey user-friendly? If not, how so?

10.                        Do you ever receive a book that defies classification and where do you number it?   

Philip Harvey

Workshop Facilitator