025.431: The Dewey blog

Nicotine

(This is the third in a series of posts on eponyms.)

Within the nightshade family of plants is the genus Nicotiana, including more than 70 species of tobacco.  Both the genus name Nicotiana and nicotine, the alkaloid that is the principal constituent of the tobacco leaf, are derived from the name of Jean Nicot de Villemain (1530–1600), a French diplomat and scholar.   As France’s ambassador to Portugal, Nicot sent tobacco seeds that had originated in the New World to Paris in 1560; he also recommended tobacco to the queen, Catherine de Medici, for migraine headches, thus introducing medicinal use of tobacco to the French court. 

The literature on nicotine is inseparable from the literature on tobacco and has many aspects.   For example, from a social welfare perspective, tobacco abuse is classed in 362.296 Tobacco as a subdivision of 362.29 Substance abuse  (for example, Smoking.drugabuse.gov:  Nicotine addiction ... and other dangers of tobacco use); from a human toxicology persective, tobacco is classed in 615.9523952 (built with 615.952 Plant poisons, plus 3952 from 583.952 Solanaceae [the scientific name for the nightshade family], following the add instruction at 615.9523–615.9528 Specific plant poisons; for example, Toxicology:  Tobacco-specific n-nitrosamines:  Recent advances); from an agricultural perspective, tobacco is classed in 633.71 Tobacco as an alkaloidal field crop (for example, The culture of tobacco).  Other appropriate numbers can be seen by browsing the Relative Index under Tobacco, Tobacco abuse, Tobacco industry, etc.  No interdisciplinary number for nicotine or tobacco is given.

Works on Jean Nicot de Villemain as a French diplomat should be classed in 327.440092 Foreign relations of France—biography (built with 327 International relations, plus T2—44 France, plus T1—0092 Biography [the use of 00 for standard subdivisions is given in a footnote], following the add instructions at 327.3–327.9 Foreign relations of specific continents, countries, localities).  (The Manual note at T1—092 Biography indicates that for public figures, greatest weight should be given to the highest office reached, after which it specifies that 327.3–.9 should be used for ambassadors.)  While Nicot may be best known for introducing the use of tobacco to France, his most significant work was the compilation of Thresor de la langue françoyse, tant ancienne que moderne, perhaps the first modern dictionary of the French language.   Works on Jean Nicot as a French lexicographer should be classed in 443.092 French lexicographers (built with 44(0) French, plus T4—3 Dictionaries, plus T1—092 Biography).   Although lexicography is in the class-here note at T4—3028 Auxiliary techniques and procedures; apparatus, equipment, materials, in the preference table for Table 1, T1—092 Biography is higher than T1—028 Auxiliary techniques and procedures; apparatus, equipment, materials.

But what about a comprehensive biography of Jean Nicot?  The Manual note at T1—092 Biography gives the following instructions:   “Use the number for the subject of the person’s most noted contribution for the comprehensive biography of the person.   If the person made approximately equal contributions to a number of fields, use the number for the subject that provides the best common denominator, giving some extra consideration to the person’s occupation.”   The introduction of tobacco to the French court, from which the use of tobacco was further disseminated throughout Europe, was a “contribution” of significant effect, marked by the eponymous use of his surname for tobacco’s scientific name and for its chief chemical compound.  But however significant the effects of his actions with respect to tobacco, his ambassadorship was of only 2-3 years’ duration.  The remaining 40 years of his life were spent as a man of learning.  No number would seem to provide a best common denominator across the range of his contributions.  The Manual note subsequently instructs:  “Class an individual biography in the number most nearly covering the history and civilization of the place and time of the activity emphasized when a work is not clearly associated with any subject but is clearly associated with a place, even in cases when a person’s activity may not approximate the whole of the most specific period.”  Consequently, a comprehensive work on Jean Nicot is best classed in 944.029092 (built with 944.029 Historical periods of France—reigns of Francis II, Charles IX, Henry III, 1559–1589, plus T1—092 Biography).

Eponymy and the DDC

I’m taking advantage of a minor relocation in DDC 23—the relocation of dictionaries of eponyms from 413.1 Specialized dictionaries to 412.03 Etymological dictionaries—to start a series of blog posts on eponymous subjects.   But first, please remind me (you might be saying), what’s an eponym?  And while you’re at it, why would dictionaries of eponyms be relocated out of 413.1?  (They sound pretty specialized, don’t they?)  And what do eponyms have to do with etymology?

An eponym is a word/phrase that is derived from the name of a person.  For instance, the Dewey Decimal Classification is an eponym, derived from the name of Melvil Dewey, the person who devised the system.  Thus eponymy is one of the types of word sources studied in etymology.  Yes, dictionaries of eponyms are specialized dictionaries, but classing them with other works on etymology makes for a better fit than classing them with other specialized dictionaries. 

The number for the DDC is, as the blog itself broadcasts, 025.431 Dewey Decimal Classification.  What then is the class number for comprehensive works on Melvil Dewey?   The Manual note at T1—092 Biography instructs us to “use the number for the subject of the person’s most noted contribution for the comprehensive biography of the person.”  It might seem obvious then that comprehensive works on Melvil Dewey should be classed in 025.431092.  But what of his other noted contributions, among which are his (co-)founding of The Library Journal, the American Library Association, and the Library Bureau, as well as the world’s first library school?   We are helped out again by the Manual note, which goes on to say, “If in doubt between a number for a discipline and a number for a specific subject within the discipline, prefer the number for the discipline.”  The most appropriate number for comprehensive works on Melvil Dewey therefore is 020.92 (built with 020 Library and information sciences, plus T1—092 Biography).  A good example of such a work is Wayne Wiegand’s Irrepressible reformer:  A biography of Melvil Dewey.

Languages for Special Purposes; Translating

As noted in a recent post, over the past several months we have incorporated a number of changes in Table 4 Subdivisions of Individual Languages and Language Families and 400 Language into WebDewey.  This entry addresses changes announced in the December 2009 New and Changed Entries (in Word and PDF formats), which focused on new entries for languages for special purposes, translating materials on specific subjects, translating literature (belles-lettres) and rhetoric, translating literature from a specific language, and translating specific forms of literature.  The changes are given there only in the context of Table 4; parallel changes have also been made in the 400s, as can be seen in WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey.

Table 4 begins with a set of modifications to standard subdivisions, including (1) several extensions to the meaning of standard subdivisions (e.g., the addition of an including note for language acquisition, speech errors, a class-here note for psycholinguistics, and a scatter class-elsewhere note at –019 Psychological principles), (2) the displacement of several standard subdivision concepts to other notation (e.g., the do-not-use note at –03 Encyclopedias and concordances pertaining to dictionaries of standard form of language, which are to be classed instead in –3 Dictionaries of the standard form of the language), and (3) a few expansions (e.g., –042 Bilingualism, which does not occur in Table 1).  Most of the expansions involve adding further subdivisions under –014 Language and communication.  The newest of these is –0147 Languages for special purposes (also known as LSPs or sublanguages).  LSPs are languages that are used in specific contexts, often restricted by subject matter and/or level of expertise (e.g., the languages of medicine, law, advertising, broadcasting).  

Note that there is no expansion for LSPs in Table 1 Standard Subdivisions.  Therefore, a work like The language of medicine, its evolution, structure, and dynamics should continue to be classed in 610.14 Language of medicine (built with 61[0] Medicine plus notation 014 Language and communication from Table 1; the placeholder zero at the end of 610 is dropped before the standard subdivision is added), not in 610.147, since Table 4 notation is not used in this context.  Nor is there a need for an equivalent expansion here:  the class number 610.14 already adequately expresses the concept “language of medicine.”  The use of T4—0147 is restricted to contexts where the base notation represents a language or family of languages and a note specifically authorizing addition of notation from Table 4 or specifically authorizing use of notation from Table 1 “as modified under” Table 4 exists.  An example is Fachsprachen in der Romania.  Fachsprachen is the German term for languages for special purposes, while in linguistics, der Romania refers to areas in which Romance languages are spoken (incidentally, because der Romania has a special meaning in the field of linguistics, this expression belongs to an LSP).  The appropriate number for this work is 440.0147 Languages for special purposes of Romance languages (built with 44[0] Romance languages plus 0 (standard subdivisions for Romance languages use two zeros, while standard subdivisions for French use one) plus notation 0147 Languages for special purposes from Table 4 ; the placeholder zero at the end of 440 is dropped before the expanded standard subdivision is added).  The use of notation 0147 from Table 4 is authorized by the note at 440.01–440.03 Standard subdivisions of Romance languages:  “Notation from Table 1 as modified under T4—01–T4—03 in Table 4, e.g., semantics of Romance languages 440.0143.”  Notation T4—0147 is not expected to be used nearly as often as 401.47, its counterpart in the modified standard subdivisions at 401–409; 401.47 would be used for LSPs generally.  Examples of works that should be classed in 401.47 Languages for special purposes include Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains and Fachsprachen: ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft = Languages for special purposes: An international handbook of special-language and terminology research.

In the past there has been only a single class in Table 4 and a single class in the 400s (T4—802 / 418.02) for translating and interpreting.  New entries have now been added for T4—803 / 418.03 Translating materials on specific subjects, T4—804 / 418.04 Translating literature (belles-lettres) and rhetoric, T4—80402–T4—80409 Translating literature from a specific language (there is no 418 equivalent, since a specific language is involved), and T4—8041–T4—8048 / 418.041–418.048 Translating specific forms of literature.  With regard to Table 4, all of these numbers follow a common pattern of using the base number for the language being translated into if the work is about translating into a specific language, the base number for the language being translated from if the work is about translating from a specific language into many languages, or the base number for the language coming later in 420–490 if the work is about translating in both directions between two languages.  (If the work is about translating from many languages into many languages, then a subdivision under 418 would be the appropriate choice.)

In the case of T4—802, notation from Table 6 Languages is added to express the language being translated from if the work is about translating from one language into one language or to express the language coming earlier in 420–490 if the work is about translating in both directions between two languages.  Table 6 notation is not added if the work is about translating from one language into many languages or from many languages into many languages; under no circumstances would Table 6 notation be added to 418.02.  For example, the work Structure of Meaning (SOM): Towards a three-dimensional perspective on translating between Chinese and English should be classed in 495.180221 Translating between Chinese and English (built with 495.1 Chinese [between English and Chinese, the language appearing later in 420–490] plus notation 802 Translating to and from other languages from Table 4 plus notation 21 English from Table 6).

In the case of T4—803 / 418.03, three-digit notation from 001–999 is added to express the subject.  However, fewer than three digits would be added if the number includes a zero that is not in initial position (the instruction reads “but stop before any zero that follows a non-zero number”).  These restrictions (three-digit notation; zeros only in initial position) are necessary to ensure that a specific number will not have more than one interpretation, since it is possible to add further notation from Table 6 to express the language translated from.  By way of example, the work Translation and medicine would be classed in 418.0361 Translating medical materials (built with 418.03 Translating materials on specific subjects plus 61 from 610 Medicine).

In the case of T4—80402–T4—80409, notation from Table 6 is added to express the specific language the literature is translated from.  For example, the work The Chinese translation of Russian literature: three studies should be classed in 495.180409171 Translating Russian literature into Chinese (built with 495.1 Chinese [the literature translated into] plus notation 8040 Translating literature from a specific language from Table 4 plus notation 9171 Russian from Table 6).

In the case of T4—8041–T4—8048 / 418.041–418.048, one-digit notation from Table 3B is added to express the literary form being translated.  For example, the work Advanced translation from Russian prose, which concerns translating Russian prose into English, should be classed in 428.04809171 Translating miscellaneous writings from Russian to English (built with 42[0] English plus notation 804 Translating specific forms of literature from Table 4 plus notation 8 Miscellaneous writings, representing notation 808 Prose literature from Table 3B, plus 0, following the instruction at T4—8041–T4—8048, plus notation 9171 Russian from Table 6).

Computational Linguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and Pragmatics

A significant part of my Dewey life these past three years has been spent in Table 4 and the 400s.  In that period of time, eight—count them, eight!—EPC exhibits (most developed with my colleague Juli Beall) have focused on aspects of Table 4 and the 400s.  Work done in these two contexts (or maybe it’s just one context) has also spawned three blog entries during the same period.  One, named Language, Language Everywhere, commented on the underlying importance of language to much of what we do.  The other two solicited feedback on discussion papers in computational linguistics and language variations. 

A number of changes in Table 4 and the 400s have recently been incorporated into WebDewey, some of which were announced in the September 2009 New and Changed Entries (in Word and PDF formats); some of which were announced in the December 2009 New and Changed Entries (in Word and PDF formats); and, as previously announced, some of which (changes with respect to language variations) will not be implemented until the publication of DDC 23.  This entry will address changes in the September New and Changed Entries posting; a subsequent entry will address changes in the December New and Changed Entries posting.

The September 2009 New and Changed Entries posting included significant changes with respect to computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, and pragmatics.  As indicated in the previous blog entry on computational linguistics, we have relocated computational linguistics from 410.285 Linguistics computer applications to 006.35 Natural language processing, where computational linguistics now appears in the class-here note.  This (006.35) is now the number in which general works on computational linguistics should be classed.  Examples of such works include Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition and Survey of the state of the art in human language technology.  According to the rule of application, works about the application of one subject (in this case, computational linguistics) to another subject, should be classed with the second subject.  The relocation opens up the possibility of expressing computational linguistics applications through the addition of standard subdivision notation T1–0285635 Computational linguistic applications (built with T1—0285 Computer applications plus notation 635 from 006.35 Natural language processing, following instructions at T1—0285).   Two such built numbers are given in the New and Changed Entries:  025.410285635 Automatic abstracting / automatic text summarization (built with 025.41 Abstracting plus notation 0285635 from Table 1, as analyzed above) and 401.430285635 Word sense disambiguation (built with 401.43 Semantics plus notation 0285635 from Table 1, as analyzed above).

We have expanded for corpus linguistics at 410.188 Corpus linguistics (under 410.18 Schools, theories, methodologies of linguistics, which itself is a previous expansion under 410.1 Philosophy and theory of linguistics).  In the past, many works on corpus linguistics have been classed with works on computational linguistics, since much of the research in corpus linguistics is done automatically, using computational linguistics techniques.  But this is not optimal, for multiple reasons.  For example, corpus linguistics is a methodology (not a set of techniques), based on the premise that linguistic study should be carried out on language as actually used rather than on language as generated introspectively (“arm-chair linguistics”).  Moreover, corpus linguistics includes aspects (e.g., selection of the language samples that will comprise the corpus) that may have nothing to do with computational linguistics.  Comprehensive works on corpus linguistics (like Corpus linguistics and the web) should now be classed in 410.188.  As a methodology, corpus linguistics is also subject to the rule of application.  Hence a work on corpus linguistics applied to a specific topic in linguistics would be classed with the topic; for example, Discourse on the move: using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure should be classed in 401.41 Discourse analysis.  And a work on corpus linguistics applied to a specific work or the works of a specific author should be classed with the work or author; for example, e-Lears: a Corpus Approach to Shakespeare and Tate should be classed in 822.33 William Shakespeare.  (The Tate adaptation of King Lear would be classed in 822.4 Drama of Restoration period, 1625-1702; as the work treats Shakespeare and Tate equally, it is the first-of-two rule that tips the balance in favor of the Shakespeare number, which comes earlier in the schedules.)

We have also expanded at 401.45 for Pragmatics, with subdivisions under it for 401.452 Speech acts (“Class here illocutionary acts”), 401.454 Presupposition (“Class here implication, entailment”), and 401.456 Reference (“Class here anaphora, deixis”).  In the past, the interdisciplinary number for pragmatics has been 306.44 Language (as an aspect of culture), because of the association between pragmatics and sociolinguistics.  An analysis of interdisciplinary works on pragmatics revealed that the better home for such works is in linguistics.  Therefore, 401.45 has now been designated as the appropriate number for interdisciplinary works on pragmatics.  (In addition to the association of pragmatics with sociolinguistics, there is a strong association of some of the subtopics of pragmatics with philosophy.  Class-elsewhere notes in the subdivisions of 401.45 remind the classifier to consider discipline first.)  Examples of works that should class in 401.45 and its subdivisions are:  Pragmatics and natural language understanding in 401.45 Pragmatics, Using language: The structures of speech acts in 401.452 Speech acts,   Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics in 401.454 Presupposition, and Studies in anaphora in 401.456 Reference.

Comparable changes, as appropriate, have been made in Table 4.

EPC Meeting 132

Giles Martin took the photo of EPC at LC on November 17, 2009. From left to right: Karl Debus-López (Library of Congress, standing in for Beacher Wiggins), Jonathan Furner (UCLA), Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa), Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University), Sandra Singh (University of British Columbia), EPC Vice-Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library), Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library), and David Farris (Library and Archives Canada).

Meeting 132 of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) was held November 16-17 at the Library of Congress. EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library) was re-elected for a second two-year term as chair.

In Table 1 (Standard Subdivisions), EPC approved a proposal to recast T1—0286 Waste technology as T1—0286 Green technology (Environmental technology). In Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons), EPC gave provisional approval to the revision of Asia Minor and Turkey, and requested additional literary warrant information before approving the expansion for Switzerland.

EPC approved selected updates in the following schedules: 004-006 Computer science; 320 Political science; 361-365 Social problems and services; 390 Customs, etiquette, folklore; 400 Language; 569 Fossil mammals and 599 Mammals; 636 Animal husbandry; 646 Sewing, clothing; 690 Buildings; 720 Architecture; 800 Literature and rhetoric; and various historical periods in 900. EPC also reviewed and approved the full schedules for 670 Manufacturing and 680 Manufacture of products for special uses.

Several discussion papers were considered by the committee. One discussion paper addressed current and proposed practices related to representation and use of standard subdivisions with extended or narrowed meanings, and displaced standard subdivisions. Our investigation of such subdivisions was prompted by two streams of inquiry—a set of questions posed by a group of Dewey Section classifiers preparing training materials (Michael Cantlon, Carolyn Turner, and Ruby Woodard), and our ongoing review of practices related to the representation of standard subdivisions in add tables. EPC approved the discussion paper on 281 Eastern churches for external review. We are seeking advice immediately from the Arabic, Greek, and Russian translation teams; we will also be seeking advice from other experts in Orthodox Christianity. Yvonne Jahns (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek), chair of the European DDC Users’ Group (EDUG) 340 Law Working Group, was a guest attendee at the meeting. She participated in the extensive discussion of various 340 Law discussion papers; the full 340 Law schedule will be considered at Meeting 133. Yvonne also presented “20 years SWD: German subject authority data prepared for the future.” EPC considered another set of discussion papers, including one from the EDUG 370 Education Working Group, focused on the 370 Education schedule. EPC reviewed revised proposals for updates to 372.3-372.8 Elementary education in specific subjects, and updates to levels of education in 372, 373, and 378. The full 370 Education schedule will also be considered at Meeting 133.

EPC also heard progress reports on Dewey linked data, mixed translation models, and ongoing efforts to use machine assistance in the development of the abridged edition. Thanks to the efforts of EPC member Welna van Eeden, a representation of the DDC Summaries in Afrikaans was added last week to dewey.info (Afrikaans is the tenth language represented in the service).

EPC scheduled a follow-up electronic Meeting 132A (to be held February 1-26, 2010), during which the committee will review the Editorial Rules for standard subdivisions; further work on the machine-assisted abridged model; updates to T1—0288 Maintenance and repair to address issues raised at Meeting 131; updates to the Table 2 provisions for Asia Minor, Turkey, and Switzerland; a possible expansion at 746.92 Costume to match similar provisions for clothing and accessories elsewhere; the updated history periods for Africa based on comments from outside reviewers; and minor updates proposed by the Swedish translation team. If necessary, we will split the meeting into two parts and schedule Electronic Meeting 132B (possibly as a webinar) at a later date. Meeting 133 will be held June 16-18, 2010, at OCLC headquarters in Dublin, Ohio.

EPC Meeting 131

Giles Martin took the photo of EPC at OCLC on June 12, 2009.  Standing, from left to right: Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library), Sandra Singh (University of British Columbia), Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), and Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa); seated, from left to right: Karl Debus-López (Library of Congress, standing in for Beacher Wiggins), David Farris (Library and Archives Canada), EPC Vice-Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), and Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University).

It seems like forever since I’ve written something here, and I’m suppressing the urge to report chronologically on my activities since the last time you heard from me (so stay tuned for reports on three very interesting meetings [one in Houston and two in Vienna] in which I participated back in April).  Today, I’m jumping forward to last week with a quick summary of Meeting 131 of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC), which was held June 10-12 at OCLC.  The meeting was chaired by EPC Vice-Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing).  EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library) and new EPC member Jonathan Furner (UCLA [and yes, former DDC assistant editor and creator of 025.431: The Dewey blog]) were unable to attend in person, but e-mailed voluminous comments that were considered by the committee during the meeting.

EPC reviewed the full version of Table 1 (Standard Subdivisions).  One provision was postponed for discussion at Meeting 132 in November 2009: the use of T1—0286 Waste technology to represent green technology.  We'll have more to say about that issue once we sort out the ripple effects throughout the schedules.  In Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons), EPC looked mostly to the past in reviewing provisions for the ancient world in T2—3.  Some of the ancient world proposals have implications for the modern world versions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, Asia Minor, and Turkey.  EPC also approved some adjustments to German administrative units proposed by colleagues at Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, plus the placement of the Barents Sea region, North Calotte, and Sápmi (Lapland).  EPC approved the full version of Table 3 (Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms), and an expansion for Hakka (Han Chinese who speak Hakka dialect) in Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups).

EPC approved updates in the following schedules: 004-006 Computer science, 200 Religion, 300 Social sciences, 301-307 Sociology and anthropology, 320 Political science, 330 Economics, 340 Law, 400 Language, 610 Medicine and health, 780 Music, 800 Literature, and 960 History of Africa.  EPC reviewed preliminary versions of 640 Home and family management, 690 Buildings, 710 Civic and landscape art, and 720 Architecture.  On the recommendation of EPC, we plan to post the sewing and clothing sections of 646 shortly for outside comment.  EPC also reviewed a preliminary proposal for updates to sections of 372.3-372.8 Elementary education in specific subjects.  In addition to comments from members and observers on the private EPC mailing list, EPC’s deliberations were informed by reports from the working groups associated with the European DDC Users’ Group (EDUG) in the areas of law, education, archaeology, and technical issues.

EPC reviewed several research initiatives from the OCLC Office of Research and the Dewey editorial team, plus the latest draft specification for Dewey Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).  We’ll be back with more information on these initiatives later.

EPC scheduled a follow-up electronic Meeting 131A (to be held August 3-28, 2009), during which the committee will address use of the term “encompassing” in the DDC, plus minor issues in 400, 710, and 780.  Meeting 132 will be held November 16-17, 2009, at the Library of Congress.

One other major Dewey event took place last week—June 12 was the last day for updating Dewey data in the current Editorial Support System (ESS).  The new ESS, along with new data formats based on the MARC classification and authority formats, is scheduled to be launched on July 5 (another reason for our recent periods of silence on this blog).  Rebecca wrote a bit about the new ESS last month—watch for more reports shortly.

Endangered Languages

Endangered languages have been in the news since the “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) . . . launched an interactive electronic version of its atlas cataloguing some 2,500 endangered languages worldwide” (UNESCO press release), e.g., the Washington Post article “Preserving Languages Is About More Than Words.”

Interdisciplinary works on endangered languages are classed in 408.9 Treatment of language with respect to ethnic and national groups (built with 4 from 400 Language plus T1—089 Ethnic and national groups).  The interdisciplinary number for language and languages is 400 Language; it has unsubdivided Relative Index entries “Language” and “Languages” and the class-here note “Class here interdisciplinary works on language and literature.”  Standard subdivision T1—089 Ethnic and national groups has the note “Class here ethnic and national minorities.”  It is especially the languages spoken by minority groups that are endangered.  An example of a work classed in 408.9 is Endangered Languages: What Role for the Specialist?

By the rule of zero, works on a specific endangered language are classed with the language in 420-490 Specific languages.  For example, A Tarifit Berber-English Dictionary: Documenting an Endangered Language is classed in 493.3 Berber languages (built with 493 Non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages plus 3 from T6—933 Berber languages, as instructed at 493).  Tarifit Berber is also known as Rif language, and Rif is in the including note at T6—933 Berber languages; hence no further addition is possible. 

Sociological and anthropological works on endangered languages are classed in 306.44 Language, which has the note “Class here anthropological linguistics, ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics.”  The number 306.44 is subordinate to 302–307 Specific topics in sociology and anthropology. An example of a work classed in 306.44 is Discourses of Endangerment: Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages.

In WebDewey the LCSH “Endangered languages” has been editorially mapped to both 408.9 Treatment of language with respect to ethnic and national groups and 306.44 Language.

Language variations around the world

Funny how one simple little question (“Where do comprehensive works on British slang belong?”) caused us such consternation.  Our proposed response affects dozens of records.  (OK, so the British slang—that is, English slang in the British Isles—solution involves only three records, but then that solution has to be propagated to languages throughout the 400s.)

Currently, the schedule provides for geographic variations of English (including slang) as follows:

>                                   427.1–427.9       *‡Geographic variations

 

Geographic variations of Middle English relocated to

427.02094–427.02099

 

Class comprehensive works in 427

 

427.1–.8        Geographic variations in England

 

Add to 427 the numbers following —42 in notation 421–428 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of London 427.1

 

Class geographic variations in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in 427.941–427.942, e.g., dialects of North Wales 427.94291

427.9  *‡      Geographic variations in other places

 

Class here pidgins, creoles

 

Add to 427.9 notation 4–9 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of Canada 427.971, Tok Pisin 427.9953

 

There appears to be no number for geographic variations of English in the whole of England other than 427.  This number is less than satisfactory since geographic variations in England and geographic variations around the world both go in this number, while geographic variations within England and in specific places elsewhere around the world get their own specific numbers.  At the same time, it is unclear whether geographic variations of English in the whole of the British Isles should join geographic variations of English in the whole of England in 427 or whether the whole of the British Isles can be interpreted as a place other than England, in which case the number 427.941 would be appropriate.

 

The main point of treating geographic variations in England separately from geographic variations in other places is to use a shorter notation for geographic variations in the “mother country,” on the assumption that more of the literature belongs there.  But our study of the geographic variations literature in WorldCat has uncovered the fact that for some languages, the literary warrant for geographic variations outside the country/countries with which the language is primarily associated is far greater than for geographic variations within.  Our proposed solution is to treat geographic variations of languages uniformly, as shown here:

 

427‡   Historical and geographic variations, modern nongeographic variations of English

 

Number built according to instructions under 421–428

 

For Old English (Anglo-Saxon), see 429

 

427 [.1–.8]    Geographic variations in England

 

Relocated to 427.942

 

427.9  *‡      Geographic variations

 

427.91 *‡                Geographic variations in areas, regions, places in general

 

Add to base number 427.91 the numbers following —1 in notation 11–19 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of the British empire 427.9171241

 

427.94–.99              Geographic variations in the modern world

 

Add to base number 427.9 notation 4–9 from Table 2, e.g., geographic variations in England 427.942 [formerly 427.1–427.8], slang of British Isles 427.941, dialects of Canada 427.971, Tok Pisin 427.9953

 

For geographic variations of Middle English, see 427.02094–427.02099

 

The proposed changes involve reuse of several numbers in 457.9 Geographic variations of Italian and 469.79 Geographic variations of Portuguese; the reuse affects a limited number of records in WorldCat.  Consider, for example, 457.91, which prior to the relocation of Sardinian in the January 2007 New and Changed Entries (in Word and PDF formats), was the number for geographic variations of Italian in the Cagliari province of Sardinia.  With the proposed changes, it becomes the number for geographic variations of Italian in areas, regions, places in general.  

The entire set of proposed changes can be viewed in the PDF here. 

At Meeting 130, the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) approved the changes to geographic language variations for publication in DDC 23 (scheduled to be published in late calendar year 2010).  Aware of the impact that the changes could have on institutions around the world, EPC also advised us to post the proposed changes and our plan to hold implementation of the changes until publication of DDC 23 for comment on the blog.  We now invite your feedback on both the proposed changes and the implementation plan, either posted as a comment to this blog entry or sent directly to dewey@loc.gov.  We request feedback by April 30, 2009.

EPC Meeting 130

The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)* held Meeting 130 at the Library of Congress November 18-19.  The meeting was chaired by Caroline Kent (British Library); Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing) was re-elected vice-chair for another two-year term. 

Prior to Meeting 130, EPC held an electronic pre-meeting, and approved updates to historical periods; modernization of the treatment of radio programs, motion pictures, and television programs regardless of method of distribution; and updates to 510 Mathematics.  All but the last will be distributed to users in early 2009.  EPC also approved, with minor modification, the long-planned updates to groups of people in Table 1 and 305-306—we plan to release the updates in mid-2009.

EPC discussed two sets of updates to Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons)—the conversion of the relocation information and corresponding changes in the reorganization of Scotland, England, and Wales presented in DDC 22; and further updates to the area table for Indonesia.  Both sets of changes require additional consultation with in-country groups.   EPC approved a final round of updates to Table 4 (Subdivisions of Individual Languages and Language Families, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms), Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups), and Table 6 (Languages)—most of the updates will be distributed to users in mid-2009.

In the schedules, EPC approved updates in the following areas: 001 Knowledge; 002 The book; 150 Psychology; 330 Economics; 390 Customs, etiquette, folklore; 400 Language (including the relocation of computational linguistics); 610 Medicine and health; 640 Home and family management; 650 Management and auxiliary services; 660 Chemical engineering & related technologies; 730 Sculpture and related arts; 740 Graphic arts and decorative arts; 750 Painting and paintings; 760 Printmaking and prints; 770.23 Photography as a profession, occupation, hobby; and 790 Recreational and performing arts. EPC also approved updates to the current historical periods in 947 Russia and 968 South Africa. Updates in many of these areas will be released during 2009.  EPC reviewed reports on work under way in 340 Law, and discussion papers on 370 Education and 780 Music. We will be seeking advice from users on a number of topics discussed at Meeting 130, including subjects in primary school curricula, language variations, meals, clothing, musical styles, and literary periods for Galician.

EPC reviewed several research initiatives from the OCLC Office of Research and the Dewey editorial team, plus draft guidelines for classifying photographs for the World Digital Library project—we’ll blog about these activities separately in the coming weeks.

On November 18, EPC held a special dinner in honor of assistant editor Winton Matthews and outgoing member Arlene Taylor.  Winton has indicated that he plans to retire in early 2009—we’ll share the resolution passed by EPC in his honor later on the occasion of his retirement.  Arlene Taylor served on EPC 2000–2008.  The committee's resolution honoring Arlene reads in part:

Whereas Arlene Taylor . . . participated in the development and review of Edition 22 (2003) and Abridged Edition 14 (2004) of the Dewey Decimal Classification, and in the publication of ongoing updates in WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey; . . . focused in particular on the needs of students and teachers of the DDC in her comments; . . . contributed “Teaching the Dewey Decimal Classification System” to a special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly devoted to the DDC; . . . presented “Research in Knowledge Organization” at Meeting 116; . . . participated in the EPC planning retreat, “The Future of the Dewey Decimal Classification,” March 15-18, 2004, at OCLC;  . . . paid special attention to the treatment of groups of people, and in particular prompted improvements to the caption for people in early adulthood and the terminology for children of unmarried parents (the latter formerly “children born out of wedlock”);  . . . Be it resolved that the members of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee here assembled at the One Hundred Thirtieth Meeting of said committee, the DDC editors, and staff at the Library of Congress Dewey Section and OCLC express to Arlene Taylor their deep gratitude and appreciation for her service and commitment to the Committee and the Classification, their regret that she will no longer be one of their number, and their wishes for her continued success and happiness now that she has retired from the Committee.

*Photo at top of EPC at LC on November 18, 2008—from left to right: Beacher Wiggins (Library of Congress), Vice Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa), Sandra Singh (University of British Columbia), Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library), Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library), Arlene Taylor (University of Pittsburgh SIS, retired), David Farris (Library and Archives Canada), and Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University).

Computational Linguistics

Ever have difficulty deciding whether material should be classed in 006.35 Natural language processing or in 410.285 Computational linguistics? (It would seem so, since many works have been classed in both numbers.) Since we have also found it difficult to distinguish clearly between the two numbers, we decided to take advantage of a recent major gathering of computational linguists at ACL-08: HLT (ACL = Association of Computational Linguistics; HLT = Human Language Technology) to get their feedback on the treatment of computational linguistics and natural language processing in the DDC.

According to LCSH, the intended distinction between computational linguistics and natural language processing is that Computational linguistics (LCC: P98-98.5; DDC: 410.285; 467 WorldCat records) is for “works on the application of computers in processing and analyzing language,” whereas Natural language processing (Computer science) (LCC: QA76.9.N38; DDC: 006.35; 365 WorldCat records) is for “works on the computer processing of natural language for the purpose of enabling humans to interact with computers in natural language.” Dewey currently adopts this same distinction. The distinction, however, does not reflect current thought.

Computational linguists at ACL-08 tended to agree that “natural language processing” (NLP) and “computational linguistics” (CL) mean pretty much the same thing (or, if different, that the meaning of natural language processing is encompassed within the meaning of computational linguistics). That makes our decision to merge natural language processing and computational linguistics relatively easy.

Deciding where the merged subject should go is much harder. On the one hand, there was agreement that the relative contribution of computer science to computational linguistics is greater than the contribution of linguistics. Similarly, there was agreement that a background in computer science is more essential for computational linguistics than a background in linguistics. Further, computer scientists are much more likely than linguists to embrace computational linguistics as part of their field. From these statements, classing the merged natural language processing / computational linguistics in 006 might seem a no-brainer. On the other hand, however, some of the observations shared suggest that the situation may not be so cut-and-dry: Computational linguistics really belongs in linguistics, but linguists don’t realize it yet. Computer scientists sometimes change the field they apply their skills to (that is, a junior computational linguist might not continue to work in computational linguistics). As a supervisor, you get better results teaching computer science to a linguist than teaching linguistics to a computer scientist.

There are at least two distinctions made in computational linguistics that should inform our decision. The first is a distinction between symbolic and statistical approaches to computational linguistics, the former emphasizing linguistics-based representations of natural language, the latter emphasizing quantitative representations of natural language. Many symbolic approaches could be classed comfortably within linguistics; however, the same could be said of statistical approaches considerably less often.

A second distinction is made in computational linguistics between tasks and applications: Computational linguistics tasks (e.g., part-of-speech tagging, parsing, word sense disambiguation, text segmentation) rely, wholly or in part, on specific properties of language in their processing and analysis and may be combined to form applications of extrinsic value; computational linguistics applications (e.g., question answering, information retrieval, automatic abstracting, machine translation) are comprised of components addressing multiple linguistic properties and are of extrinsic value. Again, one end of our spectrum (in this case, tasks) is much more like linguistics than the other (in this case, applications—unless the application is itself in linguistics, e.g., translation), but all applications carry out some number of tasks.

It appears to us that the best solution would be to drop the distinction between natural language processing and computational linguistics by relocating comprehensive and interdisciplinary works on computational linguistics from 410.285 to 006.35. We would continue to use 410.285 in its broad meaning as computer applications in linguistics; for example, the SIL (initially known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics) software catalog, which supports the work of field linguists, would be classed in 410.28553. This catalog includes, inter alia, fonts, a concordance generator, a tool for drawing syntax trees, interlinear text editors, a Spanish verb conjugator, and a program for learning the International Phonetic Alphabet.

We would love to hear your reactions to this solution. (Or if you have another solution that accounts for the interdisciplinary nature of computational linguistics, we would love to hear that, too.) For best consideration, please either comment on this blog or send email to dewey@loc.gov  by August 15.