Do you use the optional arrangement in the 200s to provide chronological/regional coverage of religion, rather than the standard, Christianity-heavy schedules? Have you thought about it? I’m going to be on a panel at this year’s Public Library Association Conference in Columbus where I’ll give some context behind the arrangement, along with librarians that have adopted it (including Emily McDonald of Lawrence Public Library (KS), who wrote a guest post about their adoption of it). I’ll share more details about that panel closer to the event, but if you’d like to mark it on your calendar now, our panel will be on Friday, April 5.
As I prepare for the presentation, I want to hear your thoughts about the arrangement, whether you’ve adopted it, considered it, or even decide against it. What do you like about it? What’s giving you pause about adopting it? What works well in the standard 200s for you? I’d also be interested to hear if you’ve adopted one of the other options in the 200s: either using the 210s for a specific religion or using all of 220-280 for a specific religion.
Recent Comments