025.431: The Dewey blog

Interdisciplinary Works

In contrast to numbers for comprehensive works on a subject (see recent blog post), which cover a subject from its various viewpoints within a single discipline, numbers for interdisciplinary works treat a subject from the viewpoint of more than one discipline.  For example, works that cover databases from the perspective of both computer science and information science should be classed in 025.04 Information storage and retrieval systems (“Class here . . . interdisciplinary works on databases”); note that the designation of 025.04 as the interdisciplinary number for databases overrides the first-of-two rule, which would call for works equally on databases in computer science (classed at 005.74 Data files and databases) and on databases in information science (classed at 025.04) to be classed in the first of those numbers, i.e., in 005.74.  The interdisciplinary works number designation calls instead for the use of 025.04.

One restriction on the use of the designated interdisciplinary number for a subject is that the work being classed must include significant material on the subject from the perspective of the discipline of the interdisciplinary number.   Consider, for example, a work on symbolism in religion and literature.   The interdisciplinary number for symbolism is 302.2223 Symbols (“Class here interdisciplinary works . . . on symbolism”); the comprehensive number for symbolism in religion is 203.7 Symbolism, symbolic objects, sounds (or 246.55 Symbols if predominantly about Christian symbolism), while the comprehensive number for symbolism in literature is 808.8015 Collections displaying symbolism (built from 808.8 Collections of literary texts from more than two literatures, plus facet indicator 0, plus notation T3C—15 Symbolism, allegory, fantasy, myth, as instructed under 808.801–808.803 Collections displaying specific features).  (The numbers for Symbolism—literature and Symbolism—religious significance are given in the Relative Index.)  The interdisciplinary number for symbolism represents the perspective of social psychology; however, if this perspective is not represented significantly in the work, we do not use the interdisciplinary number for symbolism, but use instead a religion number, as directed by the first-of-two rule.

How can interdisciplinary numbers for subjects be found?  As seen in the examples above, interdisciplinary works are sometimes given in class-here notes.  But the more general and more useful answer is that they are to be found in the Relative Index.  The most efficient strategy for finding interdisciplinary numbers in WebDewey is easily duplicated in the print Relative Index.

Interdisciplinary numbers follow the same pattern as other situations in which multiple topics call for the consideration of multiple numbers:  Statements here about the number that a work should be classed in should be understood to address only the assignment of the standard DDC number, captured in the 082 field (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) of the MARC bibliographic record.  Numbers for the subject from other perspectives that are not chosen as the standard number should be considered for inclusion in the 083 field (Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number). 

The First-of-Two Rule

Section 5.7 of the DDC Introduction indicates that a work on two subjects should be classed with the subject receiving fuller treatment.  But what about works in which the two subjects receive equal treatment?  In this case we invoke the first-of-two rule—but only if the rule of application, which takes precedence over other rules, doesn’t apply.  This rule instructs us to class such a work in the number coming first in the DDC schedules. 

Note that the first-of two rule does not instruct us to class the work in the number of the subject coming first in the title of the work.  Such an interpretation would make collocation an issue of whether all works on the two-subjects-treated-equally happened to name them in the same order in the title.  The first-of-two-rule also does not instruct us to class the work in the number of the subject coming first in the alphabet.  This would make collocation an issue of whether all languages name the two subjects so that they stand in a single fixed order.  In contrast, using the schedules as the basis for the first-of-two rule provides a mechanism whereby two-subjects-treated-equally will consistently be classed in the same number.

For example, given the first-of-two rule, works giving equal treatment to 782.26 Motets and 782.294 Psalms should be classed in the first of the two numbers, that is, in 782.26.  And, given the first-of-two rule, works giving equal treatment to 746.422 Knotting and 746.436 Tatting should be classed in the first of the two numbers, that is, in 746.422. 

Of course a work giving equal treatment to knotting and tatting is as relevant to tatting as it is to knotting.  Statements throughout this post about the number that the first-of-two rule instructs us to use should be understood to address the assignment of the standard DDC number, captured in the 082 field (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) of the MARC bibliographic record.  The number not chosen as the standard number should be considered for inclusion in the 083 field (Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number).  Our work on knotting and tatting might then have the following fields added to its bibliographic record:

082         #4            $a  746.422 $2 23

083         #4            $a  746.436 $2 23

while our work on motets and psalms might have the following fields assigned:

082         #4            $a  782.26 $2 23

083         #4            $a  782.294 $2 23

As we saw in a follow-up post on the rule of application, sometimes the basic rules that govern the assignment of numbers in the DDC are built into its notes.  For example, consider a work on abstracting (025.41 Abstracting) and subject indexing (025.47 Subject indexing and cataloging), which gives the two subjects equal treatment.  By the first-of-two rule, such a work should be classed in the first of the two numbers, that is, in 025.41.  Application of the rule is reinforced in this context by the class-here note at 025.41, which states that comprehensive works on abstracting and subject indexing are to be classed in that number.  Another example can be found at 382.093–382.099 International commerce in specific continents, countries, localities.  Provision is made here for representing commerce between two geographic units by adding Table 2 notation for both of them, separated by an intervening 0.  If the work emphasizes one of the geographic units, its Table 2 notation is given first.  But “if emphasis is equal, give priority to the one coming first in Table 2,” which echoes the first-of-two rule.

Sometimes, however, notes are given that override the first-of-two rule.  Consider, for example, a work giving equal treatment to American literature (which is classed in 810 American literature in English) and British literature (which is classed in 820 English and Old English literatures).  By the first-of-two rule, such a work would be classed in the first of the two numbers, i.e., 810.  But at 810 we find the class-elsewhere note, “Class comprehensive works on American literature in English and English literature in 820.”  Another example arises with works giving equal treatment to historical bibliography, which is found in the class-here note of 002 The book, and analytical bibliography, which is classed in 010.42 Analytical bibliography (Descriptive bibliography).  By the first-of-two rule, such a work would be classed in the first of the two numbers, i.e., 002.  But at 002 we find the class-elsewhere note, “Class comprehensive works on historical and analytical bibliography in 010.42.” 

An exception to the first-of-two rule comes into play when the two subjects are the two major subdivisions of a broader subject, in which case a work giving equal treatment to the two subjects is to be classed in the number for the broader subject of which they are major subdivisions.  For example, a work giving equal treatment to dialectology (417.2) and historical linguistics (417.7) should be classed in 417 Dialectology and historical linguistics (and not in 417.2), because 417.2 and 417.7 are the two major (and indeed, the only) subdivisions of 417. 

Finally, what may seem like a subtle distinction needs to be drawn between treatment of two subjects, to which the first-of-two rule may apply, and two aspects of a single subject, to which preference notes and preference tables apply.  We have seen that classification of a work giving equal treatment to the two subjects, knotting and tatting, is governed by the first-of-two rule.  Consider by way of contrast a work on knotted rugs, a single subject with two aspects.  The one aspect is classed in 746.422 Knotting; the other aspect is classed in 746.7 Rugs.  If the first-of-two-rule applied (but it doesn’t), the work would be classed in 746.422, but the preference table under 746.1–746.9 gives priority to 746.7 Rugs over 746.4 Needlework and handwork.

 

The Rule of Application

Section 5.7 of the DDC Introduction addresses how to classify a work that includes more than one subject in the same discipline:

5.7   A work may include multiple subjects treated separately or in relation to one another from the viewpoint of a single discipline. Use the following guidelines in determining the best placement for the work:

(A)    Class a work dealing with interrelated subjects with the subject that is being acted upon. This is called the rule of application, and takes precedence over any other rule. For instance, class an analytical work dealing with Shakespeare's influence on Keats with Keats. Similarly, class a work on the influence of the Great Depression on 20th century American art with American art.

Here is introduced the rule of application, a rule that guides the classifier in classifying a work on interrelated subjects in which one subject can be said to act upon the other.  The rule states that such a work should be classed with the subject acted upon.  (The characterization of the rule of application in the Glossary—"The rule instructing that works about the application of one subject to a second subject or the influence of one subject on another subject are classified with the second subject"—indicates that the single discipline context in which the rule of application is presented in the Introduction is not defining/restrictive.)  The Introduction also makes clear that, if multiple rules apply to the classification of a work and one of those rules is the rule of application, it "trumps" (takes precedence over) all other rules.  (In fact, the pre-eminence of the rule of application is the motivation for starting our review of the rules here.)

The rule of application is also mentioned in section 8.12 of the Introduction, where we learn that the table of preference at the beginning of Table 1 is overruled by ("yields to") the rule of application. For example, "by the rule of application, teaching financial management in hospital administration is classed in 362.110681, not 362.11071, even though notation 07 is above notation 068 in the table of preference."  We have three subjects here:  hospitals, financial management, and teaching.  Teaching is applied to financial management, while financial management is applied to hospitals, financial management constituting one aspect of hospital administration.  Since hospitals are the core subject acted upon, we start with 362.11 Hospitals and related institutions.  We then add standard subdivision T1—0681 Organization and financial management because this is the subject element that acts upon hospitals.

Perhaps the most common applications of the rule of application concern the philosophy of a subject or the history of a subject.  Such works are classed in the subject, with standard subdivisions T1—01 Philosophy and theory or T1—09 History, geographic treatment, biography added to express philosophy or history, respectively.  Thus we have 109 for the history of philosophy and 901 for the philosophy of history.  (Imagine if the rule of application were reversed and the philosophy of all subjects was to be classed in the 100s and the history of all subjects in the 900s!) 

Given the rule of application:

• Works on Shakespeare's influence on Keats are classed in the number for Keats (821.7 English poetry—1800–1837) rather than in the number for Shakespeare (822.33 William Shakespeare under 822.3 Drama of Elizabethan period, 1558–1625).
• Works on the use of data mining to support business decisions are classed within business, in a subdivision of 658.4038 Information management ("Class here gathering of information by management or use in managerial decision making; information resources, knowledge management") rather than in 006.312 Data mining, its interdisciplinary home within computer science.  The specific number for data mining to support business decisions is 658.403802856312, built with the base number 658.4038, plus T1—0285 Computer applications, plus the numbers following 00 in 006.312, following the add instruction at T1—0285.
• Works on the chemistry of hydrocarbon combustion are classed in the number for hydrocarbons (547.01 Hydrocarbons) rather than in the number for combustion (541.361 Combustion).  Numbers for specific kinds of compounds identified by component elements allow for addition from the internal add table under 547, where we find 0453–0458 Specific topics of physical chemistry and the add instruction to add to 045 the numbers following 541.3 in 541.33–541.38.  The specific number for the chemistry of hydrocarbon combustion therefore is 547.0104561.
• Works on the fractography of glass are classed in the materials science number for glass (620.144 Glass) rather than in the number for fractography (620.1126 Resistance to fracture (Fracture mechanics)).  Numbers for specific kinds of materials allow for addition from the internal add table under 620.16–620.19, where we find 1–9 Specific properties and nondestructive testing and the add instruction to add the numbers following 620.112 in 620.1121–620.1129.  The specific number for fractography of glass therefore is 620.1446.
• Works on obedience training for retrievers are classed in the number for retrievers (636.7527 Retrievers) rather than in the number for obedience training (636.0887 Pets ["Class here obedience training").  Numbers for specific breeds of dogs allow for addition of notation from the internal add table under 636.1–636.8, where we find 35 Training.  The specific number for obedience training for retrievers therefore is 636.752735.  (The decision to class obedience training for retrievers with retrievers rather than with obedience training is reinforced by the rule of zero, which we will look at later.)

It is not by accident or mere coincidence in the final three examples that provision has been made for building numbers that express the complex subject we were interested in representing.  These reflect a pattern common throughout the DDC in which the rule of application has, in effect, been built into the DDC.  A follow-up post will give further examples of where the rule of application is woven into the schedules.

DDC 23: Table 3 Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms

In the blog "DDC 23: 800 Literature (Belles-lettres) and rhetoric" we promised to discuss what's new in Table 3.

Two new paragraphs in the "Literary periods" section of the main Manual entry for Table 3A Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Author have already appeared in WebDewey.  That change was described in a previous blog: "Choice of Literary Period: Individual Authors Who Publish under Pseudonyms or Who Write in More Than One Language."

A short new Manual note gives advice on choosing between Table 3B and Table 3A:

T3B vs. T3A
Table 3B. Subdivisions for Works by or about More than One Author vs. Table 3A. Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Authors

Use Table 3B for an individual work by more than one author if the work is a collection where clearly defined parts are contributed by different authors.

Use Table 3A for an individual work by more than one author where the authors have collaborated so as to create a single whole and it is not easy (or at least not intended to be easy) to tell where the contribution of one author begins and the other ends. For example, use Table 3A for a play written in collaboration between Sir Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher.

If in doubt, prefer Table 3B.

For example, Renaissance Drama: An Anthology of Plays and Entertainments is classed in 822.308 English drama of Elizabethan period, 1558–1625—collections (built with 82 base number for English literature as specified at 821–828 Subdivisions for specific forms of English literature plus T3B—2 Drama plus 3 Elizabethan period, 1558–1625 from literary period table at 821–828 plus 08 from T3B—1008 Collections of literary texts, following instructions at 821–828 and at T3B—21–29 Drama of specific periods). 

By contrast, A King and No King by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher is classed in 822.3 English drama of Elizabethan period, 1558–1625, with no notation 08 for collections of literary texts.  The number 822.3 for the Beaumont and Fletcher play is built with 82 base number for English literature as specified at 821–828 Subdivisions for specific forms of English literature plus T3A—2 Drama plus 3 Elizabethan period, 1558–1625 from literary period table at 821–828, following instructions at 821–828 and at T3A—21–29 Specific periods). 

Table 3B has two new fiction genre numbers that have been implemented in WebDewey but little used thus far.  The first is:

T3B—3082     Autobiographical and biographical fiction

An example of a work for which the new number could be used is Autobiographie & Avant-garde: Alain Robbe-Grillet, Serge Doubrovsky, Rachid Boudjedra, Maxine Hong Kingston, Raymond Federman, Ronald Sukenick.  It has the first LCSH "Autobiographical fiction—History and criticism—Congresses." It could be classed in 809.382 Autobiographical fiction—history and criticism (built with 809 History, description, critical appraisal of more than two literatures plus 3 Fiction from 808.83 Collections of fiction plus 82 from T3B—3082 Autobiographical and biographical fiction, following instructions at 809.1–809.7 Literature in specific forms other than miscellaneous writings and at 808.831–808.838 Specific scope and types of fiction).

The second new fiction genre number is:

T3B—308768     Alternative histories

An example of a work for which the number for alternative histories could be used is Alternate Generals II. It could be classed in 813.0876808 American alternative histories—collections (built with base number for American literature in English 81 as specified at 811–818 Subdivisions for specific forms of American literature in English plus T3B—308768 Alternative histories plus 08 Collections of literary texts from add table under T3B—102–T3B—107 Specific kinds of poetry, following instructions at 811–818 and at T3B—102–T3B—107 and the footnote add instruction at T3B—308768).

The many changes in Table 3C—3 Arts and literature dealing with specific themes and subjects have already been implemented in WebDewey and explained in a previous blog.  The "Table of Mappings: DDC 000–990 to Table 3C—3 Arts and literature dealing with specific themes and subjects" described in that blog can still be useful as a guide.  An example of a work for which one of the new Table 3C—3 provisions has been used is After Representation? The Holocaust, Literature, and Culture, which has for its first LCSH "Holocaust, Jewish (1939–1945), in literature."  It is classed in 809.93358405318 Holocaust, 1933–1945—literature—history and criticism (built with 809.933 Literature dealing with specific themes and subjects plus 58 from T3C—358 Historical, political, military themes, as instructed at 809.933 plus 405318 from 940.5318 Holocaust as instructed at T3C—3583–T3C—3589 Historical themes of ancient world; of specific continents, countries, localities; of extraterrestrial worlds).

DDC 23: 800 Literature (Belles-lettres) and rhetoric

In the afternoon 10 March webinar "DDC 23: A Sneak Preview," there was a question: "Any major changes in literature numbers?" Here we’ll focus on changes in the 800s, and cover changes to Table 3 Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms in a later blog.

DDC 23 has a few new numbers in the rhetoric portion of 808 Rhetoric and collections of literary texts from more than two literatures. Here are examples, with sample titles:

808.025 Plagiarism
Stop Plagiarism: A Guide to Understanding and Prevention
Pluralizing Plagiarism: Identities, Contexts, Pedagogies

808.032 Figures of speech
Skin like Milk, Hair of Silk: What Are Similes and Metaphors?
Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase

808.512 Toasts and after-dinner speeches
Cheers! : 1,024 Toasts & Sentiments for Every Occasion
To the Happy Couple: Creating a Great Wedding Toast with Style

Before DDC 23, T3C—8–9 Literature for and by groups of people was used throughout the 800s, except in the following areas:

808.81–808.88 Collections in specific forms
809.1–809.7 Literature in specific forms

In those areas, the standard subdivision T1—08 Groups of people was supposed to be used, with 00 instead of 0.  Changes have been made to allow regular use of T3C—8–9 Literature for and by groups of people.  Here are examples, with sample titles:

808.8199287 Collections of poetry for and by women (built with 808.8199 Poetry for and by groups of people with specific attributes, residents of specific areas plus 287 from T3C—9287 Women, following instructions at 808.8199)
Ain't I a Woman! : Classic Poetry by Women from around the World
A Thousand Years of Women's Poetry

809.199287 History, description, critical appraisal of poetry for and by women (built with 809 History, description, critical appraisal of more than two literatures plus 199287 from 808.8199287 Collections of poetry for and by women, following instructions at 809.1–809.7 Literature in specific forms other than miscellaneous writings)
The Tenth Muse: Women Poets before 1806: A Rediscovery of 540 Women Poets Lost to History

A previous blog explained a change to eliminate the anomaly of two slightly different standard literary period tables for 810 American literature in English: the special literary period table for Canadian literature in English was made optional.

Several new provisions in 810–890 Literatures of specific languages and language families parallel changes in Table 6 Languages.  Many of these changes have already taken effect, e.g., the provision for literature in the Croatian language at 891.83 Croatian literature. Here is an example of a built number for a novel originally written in Croatian and a title for which it is used:

891.83354 Croatian fiction, 1945–1991 (built with 891.83 Croatian literature plus T3A—3 Fiction, as instructed  at 891.831–891.838 Subdivisions for specific forms of Croatian literature and the beginning of Table 3, plus 54 1945–1991 from the period table at 891.831–891.838, as instructed at T3A—31–39 Specific periods) 

Ministarstvo boli. English
The Ministry of Pain by Dubravka Ugrešić; translated from Croatian by Michael Henry Heim

There is a new provision in DDC 23 for literature in the Galician language at 869.9 Galician literature. Plans for that number and its literary period table were explained in a previous blog.  Here is an example of a built number for a novel originally written in Galician and a title for which the number can be used:

869.934 Galician fiction, 1900–1999 (built with 869.9 Galician literature plus T3A—3 Fiction, as instructed by the footnote at 869.9 and the beginning of Table 3, plus 4 1900–1999 from the period table at 869.9, as instructed at T3A—31–39 Specific periods) 

Lapis do carpinteiro. English
 The Carpenter's Pencil by Manuel Rivas; translated from the Galician by Jonathan Dunne

Choice of Literary Period: Individual Authors Who Publish under Pseudonyms or Who Write in More Than One Language

The February 2010 New and Changed Entries (in PDF and Word formats) added two new paragraphs to the “Literary periods” section of the main Manual entry for Table 3A Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Authors. 

The first new paragraph treats choice of literary period for individual authors who publish under pseudonyms:

If a new name is known to be a pseudonym for an author whose literary period has already been established, use the established period for works attributed to the pseudonym.  For example, if an English author began publishing at the end of the twentieth century and was assigned the period notation 914 for 1945–1999, then began publishing under a new pseudonym in 2001, use the same period notation 914 for works attributed to the new pseudonym (not 92 for 2000–    ).

An example of a work affected by this instruction is Blood Mask: A Novel of Suspense by Lauren Kelly.  Lauren Kelly is a pseudonym that Joyce Carol Oates began using after 2000.  Joyce Carol Oates is an American author who began to flourish during the period 1945–1999, and her literary period notation is 54, from the literary period table at 810.1–818 Subdivisions of American literature.  (For an overview of the relevant publishing history, see WorldCat Identities for Kelly, Lauren 1938–    and Oates, Joyce Carol 1938–    .) According to the new instruction, the literary notation for the pseudonym Lauren Kelly should also be 54.  Thus the correct number for Blood Mask: A Novel of Suspense is 813.54 American fiction—1945–1999 (built with 81, the base number for American literature in English, plus T3A—3 Fiction, plus 54 1945–1999, from the literary period table at 810.1–818 Subdivisions of American literature in English, following instructions at 810.1–818, at the start of Table 3A Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Authors, and at T3A—31–T3A—39 Fiction of specific periods). 

As explained in a previous blog entry, the Decimal Classification Division (now the Dewey Section) at the Library of Congress had previously made a tentative decision that an author who chose to establish a new literary identity with a new pseudonym in the 21st century should have the new literary period notation assigned to that new pseudonym—but the tentative decision was being reconsidered.  In light of advice received—thank you!—that decision has been reversed.   Thus although the Library of Congress had assigned the literary period notation 6 for 2000–    to Lauren Kelly and had classed Blood Mask: A Novel of Suspense in 813.6, the Library will use 813.54 henceforth for novels published under the pseudonym Lauren Kelly and for other similar pseudonyms.  The Library will not reclassify works already classified according to the earlier decision.

The second new paragraph in the February 2010 New and Changed Entries treats choice of literary period for individual authors who write in more than one language:

Make an exception to the rule of only one literary period for an author if the author wrote in more than one language and flourished during different time periods in different languages: use the appropriate literary period notation for each language. For example, if an author began to flourish as a literary author in Russian during 1917–1945, use the period notation 42 for 1917–1945 for works by that author originally written in Russian. If that same author began to flourish as a literary author in American English after 1945, use the period notation 54 for 1945–1999 for works by that author originally written in English.

Why make an exception to the rule of only one literary period for an author if the author wrote in more than one language and flourished during different time periods in different languages?  Works originally written in different languages will not be classed together; they will be classed with the literature of the original language.  Consequently, there is no reason to use the same literary period for an author in an effort to keep the works of that author together.  It is better to put the works of an author in one language in the literary period most appropriate for that language.

An example of a work affected by this instruction is King, Queen, Knave: A Novel by Vladimir Nabokov “translated by Dmitri Nabokov in collaboration with the author.”  The novel was originally published in Russian in 1928.  (For an overview of the publishing history of Nabokov, see WorldCat Identities for Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich 1899–1977.)  Because Nabokov began to flourish as a literary author in Russian during 1917–1945, the correct class number for King, Queen, Knave: A Novel is 891.7342 Russian fiction—1917–1945 (built with 891.7 Russian literature plus T3A—3 Fiction, plus 42 1917–1945 from the literary period table at 891.701-891.78 Subdivisions of Russian literature, following instructions at 891.701-891.78, at the start of Table 3A Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Authors, and at T3A—31–T3A—39 Fiction of specific periods). 

Vladimir Nabokov moved to the United States in 1940 and published his first novel in English in 1941, but he began to flourish as an author of American literature in English during the period 1945–1999.  His literary period notation as an author of American literature in English is 54, from the literary period table at 810.1–818 Subdivisions of American literature.  An example of a work affected by the instruction is the novel Lolita.  The novel was first published in English in 1955.  It is classed in 813.54 American fiction—1945–1999.

The Dewey classifiers at the Library of Congress have long followed the policy described in the paragraph about choice of literary period for individual authors who write in more than one language.

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.

Comment Period Extended: Literary Periods for Galician Literature

The comment period on the proposed literary period table for Galician literature has been extended to March 31, 2009.  Please see previous blog:  Literary Periods for Galician Literature.