One segmentation or two, vicar?

Solidus? Virgule? Oblique? Diagonal? Division symbol? Whack? Or forward slash? Whatever you like to call it, the humble separator given thus -- / -- is proving vexatious for Dewey classifiers. As are its cousins, the prime marks ( ' and " ). They're used as segmentation marks, y'see, and classifiers can insert segmentation marks in Dewey numbers for either of two reasons: either to indicate the end of the number for the same topic in the abridged edition, or to show the beginning of a standard subdivision. Classifiers at the Library of Congress carefully insert segmentation marks in the Dewey numbers that they assign to the works that they catalog. Sometimes this means that a number will contain two separate marks, one to show the end of the abridged number and a second to show the beginning of the standard subdivision. But we're not sure how helpful this practice is for Dewey libraries and/or for library system vendors, and we'd like to find out. In particular, we'd like to find out what kind of support there would be amongst our users for a simplification of segmentation practice, whereby a maximum of one segmentation mark (showing the end of the abridged number) would be assigned. You can find further details of this proposal on the Dewey discussion site here. What do you think?

Comments

[Steven S]

Greetings. I am not a professional cataloger by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I normally run away from tough cataloging questions and defer to LC. But, I have to admit, running a small church library every time I see the single or double apostrophe I stop at the number. Granted I'm getting a large ~248.5 and ~248.8 section if I remember correctly, but basically I just leave off the detail of the extra digits. Someday, if the library gets large, more than 2,000 volumes and a large ~248.5 section I might consider adding in the extra decimals. one maybe two digits beyond the right of decimal in th2 ~248 is my limit unless it is geographic specific, I'm cutting the number down. But by and large, less is more when it comes to a small library. Why confuse the patrons with unnecessary digits in such a small collection?