025.431: The Dewey blog

Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico

The ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill has been in the news, e.g., “2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill” (Times-Picayune), “Oil Spill” (USA Today), and “Disaster in the Gulf” (CBS News).  

As noted in a previous blog (“Oil Spills”), the interdisciplinary number for oil spills is 363.7382 Oil as an environmental pollutant. 

What Table 2 Geographic Areas notation should be added for a work on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?  That depends on the scope and focus of the work.  A work that focuses on the impact of the spill on the Mississippi Delta region of Louisiana would be classed in 363.7382097633 Oil as an environmental pollutant in Southeastern parishes of Louisiana (built with 363.7382 plus T1—09 Geographic treatment plus T2—7633 Southeastern parishes of Louisiana, which has the class-here note “Class here Mississippi Delta,” following instructions at T1—093–T1—099 Treatment by specific continents, countries, localities; extraterrestrial worlds).  A work that focuses on the impact of the spill on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico would be classed in 363.73820916364 Oil as an environmental pollutant in the Gulf of Mexico (built with 363.7382 plus T1—091 Treatment by areas, regions, places in general plus 6364 from T2—16364 Gulf of Mexico, following instructions at T1—091).  Works on oil spills that treat the impact on both the water and the coast usually give fuller treatment to the effects on the shorelands (shorelands include coastal wetlands and intertidal zones).  The “Introduction to the DDC,” section 5.7 (B), says: “Class a work on two subjects with the subject receiving fuller treatment.” Thus a work on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that treats the impact on both the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. Gulf Coast—with fuller treatment of the coast—would be classed with the land in 363.73820976 Oil as an environmental pollutant in Gulf Coast states (built with 363.7382 plus T1—09 plus T2—76 Gulf Coast states, following instructions at T1—093–T1—099).  If the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Gulf of Mexico are given equal treatment, then the first-of-two rule would apply, and T2—16364 Gulf of Mexico would be used instead of T2—76 Gulf Coast states. See the “Introduction to the DDC,” section 5.7 (C).

Works that focus on the effect of an oil spill on a specific subject (e.g., a specific animal) are classed with the subject according to the rule of application.  An example from studies of the effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill may illustrate.  Population, Reproduction, and Foraging of Pigeon Guillemots at Naked Island, Alaska, before and after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill is classed in 598.33 Charadriiformes.  Since pigeon guillemots do not approximate the whole of 598.33, no further addition is allowed.  

How does a classifier know which subdivision of 598 Aves (Birds) to choose, given that pigeon guillemots are not mentioned in the DDC?  In its introduction, the work being classified identifies the pigeon guillemot as being in the family Alcidae, and “Alcidae” is in the Relative Index linked to 598.33 and in the including note at 598.33.   Also, the LCSH for “Pigeon guillemot” has “Cepphus” as broader term, and the LCSH “Cepphus” has “Alcidae” as broader term.  Similar information is available in many reference sources, e.g., the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Bird Guide at “Pigeon Guillemot.”

The potential effect of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the brown pelican has been in the news, e.g., “Oil Threatens Brown Pelican Off of Louisiana Coast” (NPR) and “La.'s [Louisiana’s] State Bird, Brown Pelican, Imperiled by Oil” (AP).  Works on the effect of the oil spill on the brown pelican will be classed with other works on the brown pelican in 598.43 Pelecaniformes, which has an including note that begins: “Including Pelecanidae (pelicans). . . . .”  An example of a work classed in 598.43 is Brown Pelican: Pelecanus Occidentalis.

Topic Neighborhoods

Neighbors and neighborhoods are found in many places in the DDC.   The interdisciplinary number for neighborhoods as a social community is 307.3362, where provision is made for adding from 307.72–307.77 to represent specific kinds of communities—rural communities, suburban communities, urban communities, and self-contained communities.  Interpersonal relations with neighbors are classed in 158.25, while the psychological influence of neighbors is classed in 155.925 (built with 155.92 Influence of social environment plus 5 from the numbers following 158.2 in 158.25 Interpersonal relations with neighbors, following the instructions at 155.92).   But humans apparently are not the only kinds of things who can be neighbors:  over forty Table 2 captions refer either to “neighboring islands” (as part of Indonesia) or to “neighboring counties” (in such states as Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana).  

In addition to social and geographic neighborhoods, metaphorical senses of neighborhood are also found in mathematics.  In topology, the neighborhood of a point in a topological space is defined as an open set containing the point; a topological neighborhood is classed in 514.322 Point set topology (General topology).   In graph theory, the neighborhood of a vertex in a graph is the set of all vertices adjacent to it and all edges between the adjacent vertices; a graph theoretical neighborhood is classed in 511.5 Graph theory. 

There is also a sense of topic neighborhood relevant to classification schemes, based on the graph theoretical concept of neighborhood.  This concept was the subject of a presentation on the ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification given by DDC editors Rebecca Green and Michael Panzer at the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, held 23-26 February 2010 in Rome, Italy; the theme of the conference was paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization.  (Michael also cooperated with Marcia Lei Zeng and Athena Salaba, both of Kent State University, in a presentation on expressing classification schemes with OWL 2.)   Topic neighborhoods in the DDC are classed in a number that this blog has memorialized, 025.431 Dewey Decimal Classification itself.

The gist of the concept of topic neighborhoods recognizes that the category description associated with a class in a classification scheme is seldom limited to a single topic.   Instead, the typical class is a gathering place for a set of related topics.  But that doesn’t mean that all the topics classed in the same number are part of a single undifferentiated neighborhood.  Rather the class is composed of a set of focal topics (topics in class-here and including notes; captions are often sources of focal topics as well) and their individual neighborhoods (the union of which can be referred to as the neighborhood of a set of points).

Using 782.292 Chant as our major exemplar, our presentation explored the many features of the DDC that define the membership of a class neighborhood.  Some of these features, like class-here and including notes, are additive in nature, while other features, like class-elsewhere and see-reference notes, are subtractive.  Additional features involved in the development of neighborhoods include subsumption (specialization, instantiation), the non-addition of standard subdivision notation for topics in standing room, index terms, hierarchical force, principles of assigning Dewey numbers, diachronic development of the DDC, the existence of the DDC in both full and abridged versions, the classification of bibliographic resources, and—a suggestion from our colleague Hope Olsen—the coordinate numbers of the class.  The presentation also addressed issues concerning the representation of topic neighborhoods in knowledge representation systems (a concern that also spilled over into the Zeng/Panzer/Salaba presentation).

(While we’re on the subject of neighborhoods, we also want to acknowledge the innovative application of neighborhoods to the Dewey context that has been adopted by the Topeka and Shawnee County [KS] Public Library.)

Neanderthal (Neandertal) Genome

“Neanderthal Genes ‘Survive in Us’” is the emphasis of a BBC article about research done by the Neanderthal Genome Project at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. The research was reported in the 7 May 2010 issue of Science under the title “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome.” Here is the abstract:

Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.

The Science web site has a “Special Feature: The Neandertal Genome” in connection with the research article. The Smithsonian Institution is updating its “Ancient DNA and Neanderthals” based on the new results.

The interdisciplinary number for Neanderthals is 569.986 Neanderthals, as shown by the unsubdivided Relative Index entry:

Neanderthals                               569.986
 
In the upward hierarchy of 569.986 are 569.98 Homo sapiens, 569 Fossil Mammalia, and 560 Paleontology    Paleozoology.  Examples of works classed in 569.986 Neanderthals are Neandertals: A Prehistoric Puzzle, The Humans Who Went Extinct: Why Neanderthals Died Out and We Survived, and Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives.

A work about the Neanderthal genome would also be classed in 569.986 Neanderthals (in standing room).  How does a classifier learn that? 

One approach would be to browse the Relative Index for “genetics”: 
 
Genetics                                       576.5
Genetics
      see Manual at  576.5 vs. 572.8         
Genetics--animal husbandry              636.0821
Genetics--animal husbandry--sheep   636.30821
Genetics--animals                           591.35
Genetics--history                            576.509
Genetics--humans                           599.935
Genetics--humans--sociology            304.5
Genetics--mathematics                    576.50151
Genetics--microorganisms                 579.135
Genetics--plants                             581.35
Genetics--sociology                         304.5

A classifier who takes this approach might look at 599.935 Genetics, which has in its upward hierarchy 599.93 Genetics, sex and age characteristics, evolution and 599.9 Hominidae    Homo sapiens.  At 599.9 is the see reference; “For prehistoric Hominidae, see 569.9.”  Since a see reference has hierarchical force, genetics of prehistoric Hominidae, including Neanderthals, cannot be classed in 599.935.  Since prehistoric Hominidae are excluded from 599.935 Genetics, the following see reference at 599.935 does not apply to Neanderthals: “For biochemical genetics, see 611.01816.” 

Comprehensive works on the genetics of prehistoric Hominidae and modern humans, however, can be classed in 599.935, along with consideration of modern humans’ genetic inheritance from prehistoric ancestors. An example is Reflections of Our Past: How Human History Is Revealed in Our Genes.

A classifier might take another approach, and browse the Relative Index for “genomes”:

Genomes                        572.86
Genomes--humans           611.018166

The number 611.018166 DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid), which has 610 Medicine and health in its upward hierarchy, applies only to modern humans. The interdisciplinary number for genomes, 572.86 DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid), has the class-here note: “Class here chromosomal DNA, codons, genes, genomes.”  While it is possible to add to 572.86 to specify kind of organism (via the add table at 572.5–572.8 Specific biochemicals and biochemical genetics, which has instructions for adding notation from 571 Physiology and related subjects and ultimately from 590 Animals), no provision has been given for adding notation from the 560s to specify prehistoric organisms. At 570 Life sciences is the see reference “For paleontology, see 560,” and there is no see reference in the 560s sending biochemical genetics of prehistoric organisms back to 572.8 Biochemical genetics.

For additional information about classifying genomes, see the earlier blog “Cattle Genome.”

Volcanoes in Iceland, Volcanic Ash, and Air Transportation Safety

We have previously written about volcanoes in the context of national parks (“National Parks, Volcanoes, and Bird Watching”), and we gave there the interdisciplinary number for volcanoes: 551.21 Volcanoes.  WebDewey has a built number for volcanoes in Iceland: 551.21094912 Volcanoes—Iceland (built with 551.21 plus T1—09 Historical, geographic, persons treatment plus T2—4912 Iceland, following instructions at T1—093–T1—099 Treatment by specific continents, countries, localities; extraterrestrial worlds). An example of a work classed in 551.21094912 is Volcanoes in Iceland: 10,000 Years of Volcanic History. Some of the news stories about the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull have focused on the volcano, e.g., “Volcano Eruption: Iceland’s Volcano Explained” and “Eyjafjallajokull Update: Eruption Ongoing but Smaller.”

Most news stories, however, have emphasized the effect of the volcanic ash clouds on air transportation, e.g., “Iceland Volcano Ash Hits European Flights Again” (AFP) and “How Volcano Chaos Unfolded: In Graphics” (BBC) (summary of the BBC story: “The ash cloud produced by the eruption of a sub-glacial volcano in Iceland brought chaos to the European air industry between 14 and 21 April. Here we explain how and why the crisis developed”). See also the BBC overview page “Volcanic Ash Cloud.”  UK’s National Weather Service has one of the “Nine Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres around the world [that are] are responsible for advising international aviation of the location and movement of clouds of volcanic ash”; its site has information about the VAAC system and advisories from the London and Toulouse centers.

The interdisciplinary number for volcanic ash as a cause—or potential cause—of air transportation accidents is 363.12412 Natural factors, a subdivision of 363.1241 Causes of air and space accidents.  Examples of works classed in 363.12412 are National Volcanic Ash Operations Plan for Aviation and Support of the ICAO International Airways Volcano Watch and Volcanic Ash Detection and Air Safety: Final Report to the CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications.

The comprehensive number for technology of air safety is 629.1300289 Air safety—technology (built with 629.13 Aeronautics plus 0 plus standard subdivision T1—0289 Safety measures, following the pattern of double 00 for standard subdivisions shown in the entry 629.13001–629.13009 Standard subdivisions); 629.1300289 includes air traffic control and ground operations as well as flight.  An example of a work classed in that number is Proceedings of the 2000 Advances in Aviation Safety Conference.  Works that focus on volcanic ash in relation to air safety technology might be classed in 629.1300289 or might be classed in a more specific subdivision of 629.13, depending on the focus of the work.