025.431: The Dewey blog

EPC 143 exhibits ready for review

The Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) will meet virtually in early June for their Meeting 143. Dates and times will vary based on members' availability. You can view the following revision proposals at oc.lc/deweyexhibits:

• EPC 143-S29.1a - Introduction, Islam and secular disciplines
• EPC 143-S29.1b - 297.38 Rites, ceremonies, prayer, meditation
• EPC 143-S29.1c - 297.48 Sufi orders
• EPC 143-S29.1d - 297.54 Zakat
• EPC 143-S29.1e - 297.576 Individual observances
• EPC 143-S30.1 - 304.8 Movement of people
• EPC 143-S30.2 - Disasters as causes of social change
• EPC 143-S74.1 - Graphic design and communication design
• EPC 143-T1.2 - Terminology in T1--08 Groups of people
• EPC 143-T2.1 - Kosovo
• EPC 143-T2.2 - T2--599 Philippines
• EPC 143-T6.1 - T6--9549 Eastern Himalayan languages; T5--9549 Eastern Himalayan peoples

(To paraphrase guidance we give on the Summaries, Consult exhibits for complete and exact titles.)

Please share any feedback, positive or negative! You can do so by commenting on this post, posting to the the Dewey Contributors Google Group, or by email to dewey@oclc.org or an EPC member.

LCSH in WebDewey

I always enjoy going through the answers of our user surveys. One that has come up a few times, including the most recent one, is a desire for more mapped LCSH in WebDewey. I hear you! Mappings are a prime example of the value you can get out of WebDewey that just aren't practical in print.

Our current mapping of LCSH tends to be ad hoc. When we're working a certain area, we'll look for relevant LCSH to add on. Once upon a time, the editorial team tried to map all new LCSH every week. That quickly became more than we could chew! And if you've ever seen a mapped LCSH for a really obscure or specific topic, it may well have come from this. As you may know, the bar for authorizing an LCSH is much lower than that for a new Dewey number.

One comment on LCSH mapping in particular intrigued me:

More LC subject headings within the schedules as those tend to be more useful than Relative Index terms. Or at least make them match more

In years past, the editorial team often specifically chose not to map LCSH that were an exact or close match for a Relative Index term. While I can see the logic there, it's not a practice I've maintained. If you browse LCSH in WebDewey, for example, a heading that's not there just isn't there--an equivalent Relative Index term doesn't help.

Of course, it's a different story with keyword searching, which doesn't care about the source of a term. For that reason, I've often created Relative Index terms that differ from their equivalent LCSH--not to be contrarian, but to enhance keyword accessibility. We also have more flexibility with Relative Index terms. For example, we could give two Relative Index terms for close concepts that are clumped into a single LCSH, or use a more internationally recognized version of a US-centric term.

So my questions for you...

1. What are some specific areas (or even specific numbers) that you'd like to see more LCSH added to?
2. Do you prefer Relative Index terms that closely match LCSH, or do you want them to diverge?
3. Any other suggestions related to LCSH in WebDewey?