What do you think of the 200s optional arrangement?

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.

Comments

[Lisa]

I have a paper accepted by CCQ that describes my former library’s experience migrating to the optional arrangement in 2021. Happy to share a link when it’s out and discuss further anytime.

[Joy]

I have been cataloging for over 30 years and this is the first that I have heard of this alternative. I do use WebDewey and have never seen a suggestion to use a different number. Also, I am unable to find any reference to this change in WebDewey.

[Alex]

Joy: You can find information on the optional arrangement at the Manual note 220-290, which includes a link to the PDF for the full arrangement as mapped by Rebecca Green. We've also made that PDF freely available at https://tinyurl.com/optionalDDC220-290.

[Deb]

Alex, the tinyurl doesn't seem to work

[Deb]

The URL in this post works for me.

https://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2019/05/mapping-220290-standard-notation-to-the-optional-arrangement-for-the-bible-and-specific-religions.html

[Alex]

Thank you, Deb! Looks like that period was accidentally incorporated into the URL. So this one should also work:
https://tinyurl.com/optionalDDC220-290

[Monique]

Hello, I'm a cataloguer for a Regional Library Service in NSW, Australia. Currently, Aboriginal Australian religion is classified at 299.9215. I think this it's a good fit, but not ideal. I disagree with the phrase 'other ethnic origin' for First Nations people. I would adopt 239.915 Aboriginal Australian religions (https://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/subject/mtwfb7c-2.html?k=default&l=60&linkType=term&w=4558&n=1&s=5&t=2) from the 'Optional arrangement for the Bible and specific religions' if/when it replaces the current Christian centric schedule.

thanks :)