Are you interested in using WebDewey to produce Abridged Edition 15 numbers? If yes, do you have "Show" checked under Segmentation Options on the Preferences page of WebDewey? If yes, you should be able to see the segmentation marks (/) and segmentation instructions described below.
What do the segmentation marks in WebDewey indicate? The end of the Abridged 15 number.
If you find a particular segmentation mark or instruction confusing, look to the bottom of the WebDewey screen at the box labeled Abridged Edition 15 and click the appropriate link to see the relevant portion of the PDF. The explanation of segmentation that follows is intended to reduce the number of times that you will need to consult the PDFs—especially since, as the blog entry "WebDewey's New [Abridged] Look" said, "One caveat: the PDFs contain static content, and will not be updated as changes to DDC 23 are introduced."
Let's consider some examples of segmentation. If you browse the Relative Index for "supercomputers" you will find as the first entry:
Supercomputers 004.1/1
If you click to see the full record, you will see the same segmentation mark in 004.1/1 in the hierarchy box. If you click the span 004.11-004.16 Digital computers in the hierarchy box to see that full record, you will see that the subdivisions for mainframe computers (004.1/2) and midrange computers (004.1/4) similarly have a segmentation mark after the 1, but the subdivision for personal computers (004.16) has no segmentation mark.
What this means is that the abridged number for supercomputers, for mainframe computers, and for midrange computers is 004.1--but the abridged number for personal computers is 004.16. If you click the link for 000 in the box labeled Abridged Edition 15 and go to 004.1 in the PDF, you will find that 004.1 General works on specific types of computers has no subdivisions 004.11, 004.12, or 004.14, but it does have a subdivision 004.16 Personal computers (and 004.16 has further subdivisions). Supercomputers, mainframe computers, and midrange computers are all mentioned in the including note at 004.1.
For another example, if you browse the Relative Index for "computer scientists" you will find:
Computer scientists 004.092
Computer scientists--collected biography 004.092/2
The segmentation mark in 004.092/2 means that the Abridged 15 number for collected biography of computer scientists is 004.092. If you click to see the full record for 004.092/2, you will see the same segmentation mark in 004.092/2 in the hierarchy box. The orange puzzle-piece symbol marks it as a built number that does not appear in the schedule.
Since the number was built with notation from Table 1, you can search for "t1--0922" and click to see the full record (or browse the Relative Index for "collected biography"), and you will find that T1--092/2 Collected biography also has a segmentation mark after 092. If you check the T1 PDF in the Abridged Edition 15 box, you will find that —092 Biography has no subdivisions, and "collected biography" is mentioned in the including note under —092. Hence the segmentation mark in 004.092/2 correctly marks the end of the abridged number.
For another example, if you browse "Mexican cooking" in the Relative Index, you will get one entry, pointing to a number with no segmentation mark:
Mexican cooking 641.5972
If you click to see the full record, you will see that the number 641.5972 is a built number that does not appear in the schedule (orange puzzle-piece), and still there is no segmentation mark. If in the hierarchy box you click the span 641.593-641.599 Cooking characteristic of specific continents, countries, localities to see that full record, you can see the add note that was used to build the number, plus a segmentation instruction:
Add to base number 641.59 notation T2--3-T2--9 from Table 2, e.g., Southern cooking (United States) 641.5975
Segmentation Instruction: Segment as shown in Table 2
That segmentation instruction means that the instruction to add from Table 2 is present in Abridged Edition 15, and the abridged number ends after the abridged Table 2 notation. If you browse the Relative Index for Mexico, or check the T2 PDF for Abridged Edition 15, you will find that the abridged Table 2 number for Mexico is T2--72; hence the abridged number for Mexican cooking is 641.5972.
If you browse the Relative Index for "Zanzibari cooking," you will find a number with a segmentation mark before the final 1:
Zanzibari cooking 641.59678/1
In the full record, the same segmentation mark appears in 641.59678/1 in the hierarchy box:
If you browse the Relative Index for "Zanzibar," you will find that the Table 2 number T2--678/1 also has a segmentation mark before the final 1:
Zanzibar T2--678/1
Hence the correct Abridged Edition 15 number for Zanzibari cooking is 641.59678.
One more example. If you browse the Relative Index for "roses" you will find:
Roses 635.9/33734
Roses—arts T3C--3643734
Roses—botany 583/.734
Roses—floriculture 635.9/33734
The floriculture number for roses in Abridged Edition 15 is 635.9, because the segmentation mark follows the 9 in 635.9/33734. The botany number for roses in Abridged Edition 15 is 583, because the segmentation mark follows the first 3 in 583/.734. Why does the Table 3C number for roses have no segmentation mark? Abridged Edition 15 has no Table 3C; none of T3C--3643734 is included in any abridged number.
If you click to see the full record for 635.9/33734, you will find a segmentation mark after 635.9 in all the numbers below 635.9 in the hierarchy, including the span 635.9/33-635.9/38 Taxonomic groupings--except for 635.93-635.97 Groupings of plants.
Why does the span 635.93-635.97 Groupings of plants have no segmentation mark? The technical reason is that the span is a centered entry, and centered entries get no segmentation marks. The technical reason is unimportant; the take-away is this: if you see a span in the hierarchy box with no segmentation mark, you must look at the specific subdivisions to see whether they have segmentation marks.
For information about the change in segmentation practice that began September 1, 2005, see the previous blog entry "Sweet segment solution" and related discussion paper.
Comments