025.431: The Dewey blog

Vaping: A roundabout journey

No, this isn’t about a modern reimagining of The Hobbit—it’s the story of how we eventually found a place for vaping in the DDC. For a single topic, it took us a while.

We all know the DDC is discipline based, right? So what discipline does vaping belong to? Several of them. When introducing a topic into the classification, it’s always a good idea to consider whether there are similar topics that could either form models for a new development, or even whether the new topic can go in an existing number.

Vaping first came to our attention in the “before times”, identified as a priority by respondents in a 2019 user survey. Emily Zinger, our intern that year, assisted then-editor Violet Fox in researching the topic, as did volunteer contributor Josh Hall. Their efforts culminated in exhibit EPC 142C-S36.1 Vaping and vaping devices.

You’re welcome to read the whole exhibit, but to summarize, they looked at how tobacco products, smoking, and cigarettes were treated in the DDC. They identified an important split between vaping as an activity versus vape devices (also known as e-cigarettes, e-cigs, vape pens, vapes, and many other terms) and their liquid, which can be covered in disciplines such as manufacturing. It was a great start, but ultimately, EPC sent it back for further work. It took us a while to prepare a revamped exhibit, but in our defense, it was 2020.

I led the efforts on this year’s version, EPC 145-S36.2. I kept “Vaping and vaping devices” as the title, which I believe I suggested before. (Was I inspired by a certain King of the Hill catchphrase? I’ll never tell!) As I noted in the exhibit, last year’s Editor in Residence, Kathryn Becker, helped a lot to get us back on track with the topic. It really does take a village.

My general approach was to start with the previous exhibit, which had solved a lot of the fundamentals, but to scale back a bit, saving some similar topics, such as indoor smoking bans and other law aspects, for another day.

You can see all of the approved changes live in WebDewey, which differ in some respects from what I proposed. An important one, inspired by feedback from colleagues in the UK, was to put vaping in including notes, limiting it to standing room.

Why? For all the interest in the topic, we just haven’t seen that much literature on it. I still expect it to grow, but it didn’t grow as much as I expected since 2020, for example. Using including notes here is more “future-proof”, in that if we later decide to give smoking and vaping different numbers, we can do so. Conversely, if we decide class-here notes are more appropriate, that the topics should be treated the same, it’s easier for us to shift that way, and allow number building, than vice versa, which would entail invalidating numbers users could otherwise have built in the meantime.

I’m glad to say that once we really get to work on an exhibit, the timeline is shorter than it was here. But the journey of vaping is also a good example of how the extra time to get it right can really pay off.

EPC 145 changes live in WebDewey

EPC Meeting 145 concluded with all exhibits ultimately approved. Some were subject to amendment, so as usual, what you see in the Google Drive is what was proposed, not necessarily the final version that was approved. Always consult WebDewey for the most authoritative information.* Fortunately, all of the changes from EPC 145 are already live there! Keep an eye on the Dewey blog in September for posts highlighting some of those changes.

Regular readers may know what I'm going to say now: you, too, can be a part of the editorial process! We're always accepting suggestions for changes big and small. You can use the "Help Revise the DDC" form in the WebDewey footer, email us, comment here... as long as your message gets to us, there's no wrong way to do it. You could see your work in the DDC in the next round of revisions--or even earlier.

*Oh yeah, and speaking of things that are live, there's a little thing called Dewey linked data you can browse now! Explore the summaries freely, or log on with your existing English WebDewey account to see the whole thing in all six languages. Stay tuned for more information.

EPC 145 exhibits ready for review

Starting three weeks from today, the DDC Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) will hold their annual meeting, from 9-11 July. At this meeting, Meeting 145, they will consider a slate of exhibits with proposed changes to the classification. The following exhibits are available for review at our Google Drive page:

• EPC 145-S29.1 Qur'an and branches of Islam
• EPC 145-S32.1 Radicalism
• EPC 145-S32.2 Christian nationalism
• EPC 145-S34.1 Institutions of the European Union
• EPC 145-S36.1 Social problems (discussion paper)
• EPC 145-S36.2 Vaping and vaping devices
• EPC 145-S94.1 Ukrainian history
• EPC 145-T1.1 T1--0285 Computer applications
  • EPC 145-T1.1a T1--0285 Computer applications, other standard subdivisions, geographic information systems
  • EPC 145-T1.1b Libraries and archives; Journalism and publishing
  • EPC 145-T1.1c Sociology and anthropology
  • EPC 145-T1.1d Other social sciences

A special note on that last group: EPC 145-T1.1 is one very large exhibit about the use of standard subdivision T1--0285 and its builds throughout the schedules and tables. The base EPC 145-T1.1 document lays out the general issues involved, and exhibits T1.1a-T1.1d give specific recommendations broadly related to T1--0285 in those areas. So for example, EPC 145-T1.1b is not about general issues related to libraries and archives or journalism and publishing, but about how T1--0285 is used for those disciplines.

At their meeting, EPC will discuss and vote on these proposals. If you have feedback, we welcome comments here, via email, or directly to EPC members. While we'll always do our best to accommodate later comments, it's best to make your voice heard before the first day of the meeting, 9 July.

If you'd like to propose a change for EPC's future consideration, just check the DDC contributors page at oc.lc/DeweyContributors to get started. I hope to hear from you!

Blockchains and cryptocurrency

No, this isn’t an announcement of our long-awaited “DDCoin” cryptocurrency—I just want to highlight a recent update to the classification approved as part of EPC Meeting 144A.

We had been getting requests for coverage of the interrelated topics of blockchains and cryptocurrency. A few years ago, we mapped the LCSH Bitcoin to 332.4 Money and considered it in standing room there. We knew there would be more to do, but it’s common in the editorial process for an LCSH mapping to lead the way like this.

When I sat down to create the proposal, I knew I wanted to address both cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange (i.e., the type of usage we were thinking of when we mapped bitcoin to 332.4) and as an investment vehicle. Investors can buy, sell, or hold regular currency as an investment too, but this aspect is especially salient with cryptocurrency.

I also wanted to give a good home to blockchains, the type of secure database system underlying most cryptocurrencies. I knew that would probably be somewhere in computer science, since blockchain can be applied in other areas as well.

You can view the full exhibit for the whole story, since it was accepted without amendment. Ultimately, we decided to continue cryptocurrency from 332.4 to 332.4048, a new subdivision under 332.404 Forms and units of money. The new number has a scatter-see reference for usages such as cryptocurrency banking services and cryptocurrency as an investment.

In computer science, we continued blockchains to 005.7588, under 005.758 Distributed data files and databases. This means that you can build a number, via standard subdivision T1—0285 Computer applications, for blockchains in different areas, e.g., blockchains in medical records management 651.50426102857588.

For such complex topics, I think the work involved in getting them into DDC was fairly straightforward. We also considered a subdivision for specific cryptocurrencies, but most don’t have sufficient literary warrant. It’s something we could explore in the future, though.

Finally, if you’ve ever tried to learn about these topics on your own, you probably quickly realized that there are a ton of sources telling you about how great crypto is and why you should invest in it—a lot of noise that can make it hard to find reliable information. I wanted to put in a good word for Anders Brownworth’s Blockchain 101 on YouTube, which explains blockchain technology in a really clean, concise way, with good examples. If you want investment advice, though, you’ve come to the wrong blog!

EPC 144A exhibits ready for review

The DDC Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) will hold their next asynchronous meeting from 8 January-2 February. At this meeting, Meeting 144A, they will consider a slate of exhibits with proposed changes to the classification. The following exhibits are available for review at our Google Drive page:

• EPC 144A-S33.1 Cryptocurrency and blockchains
• EPC 144A-S34.1 340 Computers in law
• EPC 144A-T2.1 Provinces of Afghanistan
• EPC 144A-T2.2 Subdivisions of Morocco
• EPC 144A-T2.3 Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• EPC 144A-T6.1 Luxembourgish

As always, I invite any interested users to review and comment on these proposals. You may do so here on the blog, via email, or at the DDC contributors forum at oc.lc/DeweyContributors. You can also share your comments directly with members of EPC.

Changing climates

My DDC career started in 2011, when I was the first ever DDC intern. Fresh out of the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science, I had assigned DDC numbers to around a thousand works in a side job for an environmental nonprofit in the area. I had seen firsthand how those works were going all sorts of places in the schedules, and during my internship, I thought I might put together a proposal to bring them together.

That never happened, because I realized that environmental studies is interdisciplinary by nature. That’s not to say one couldn’t bring them all together—the Chinese Library Classification largely does, in its X section—but doing so would have caused significant disruption elsewhere in the schedules.

I picked up the cause again a few years ago, both out of personal interest and requests from users and colleagues, such as those at the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Probably the biggest issue I found was a lack of the phrase “climate change” in the DDC at all. The closest thing we had was “global warming”. As much as there is warming around the globe, you probably hear “climate change” more often now, as we’ve come to understand there’s more to it than just warming, such as extreme weather events or even significant cold.

In EPC Meeting 144, we took a big step forward on the topic of climate change in the DDC. You can review the full exhibit for more of what went into this, or see the changes now live in WebDewey. Today, I just wanted to highlight some of the more significant aspects of it:

• Climate change and global warming are now in the class-here note at 363.7 Environmental problems. This recognizes climate change as the central environmental problem, allowing for number building throughout this hierarchy. Previously, global warming was in a class-here note at 363.73874 Greenhouse gases, a more technical number under pollution. Users often prefer shorter numbers, and this means climate change is at a number valid for abridged classification.
• We have designated 551.6 Climatology and weather as the comprehensive number for scientific works on climate change. Previously, the Manual note 551.5 vs. 551.6 seemed to push you more towards 551.5 Meteorology. That may still be appropriate for some works, but trying to separate climatology from climate change science would just be too confusing.
• New topics such as climate justice and social consequences of climate change have been added.

I say this is a step forward both because it’s a very active area in science and because, like many editorial efforts, it’s brought our attention to other areas. So what’s next? Economic aspects. Expect to see work on topics such as carbon trading, environmental credits, and sustainable investing.

And as always, I hope you’ll be a part of those next steps. What are some topics that you’re having trouble classifying? What does and doesn’t work about the schedules for you? Like addressing climate change, maintaining the DDC is a group effort too.

EPC 144 exhibits ready for review

The DDC Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) will hold their annual meeting from 12-14 July. At this meeting, Meeting 144, they will consider a slate of exhibits with proposed changes to the classification. The following exhibits are available for review at our Google Drive page:

• EPC 144-S27.1 272.1-.9 Persecutions in general church history--historical periods
• EPC 144-S30.1 Transvestism and cross dressing
• EPC 144-S30.2 304.8 Movement of people and 325 International migration and colonization
• EPC 144-S36.1 365.47 Institutions for immigrants and refugees
• EPC 144-S36.2 Climate change
• EPC 144-S61.1 Gender dysphoria
• EPC 144-S61.2 Autism spectrum disorder; Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• EPC 144-S64.1 649.8 Home care of people with illnesses and disabilities by family and friends
• EPC 144-S74.1 Design in 745-749 (discussion paper)
• EPC 144-S79.1 Drag
• EPC 144-S89.1 Period table for Cornish literature at 891.67
• EPC 144-T2.1 Subdivisions of Pakistan
• EPC 144-T2.2 Subdivisions of Central Asian countries
• EPC 144-T5.1 Black people and White people
• EPC 144-T5.2 Irish Travellers (Mincéirs)

Some of these proposals come straight from DDC users, and many others were prompted by questions or suggestions. I've already had a proposal sent to me for the next meeting! If you'd like to be a part of that, I encourage you to get in touch. And for EPC 144, I encourage any interested users to review and comment on these proposals. You may do so here on the blog, via email, or at the DDC contributors forum at oc.lc/DeweyContributors. You can also share your comments directly with members of EPC.

“How can people change their minds about us if they don’t know who we are?” – Harvey Milk

Between my internship time constraints (I’m 2/3 of the way through), preparing presentations for our OCLC team, and the researching, writing, revising exhibits for our EPC meeting in July, we’ve been busy here these past few months in the DDC office.  Let me tell you a bit about the projects I’ve been working on.

My focus has been on topics that primarily affect the LGBTQIA+ community.  Currently, I have three projects that will be presented to the EPC board for approval; I’m hoping to have at least one more, and if I can manage it, two more projects by then.  Curious?  I’m excited to tell you about them, so read on!

My first topic was suggested by a librarian (remember, you can email us at [email protected] with ideas and suggestions) for the best place to classify books on drag  Once I researched the history behind drag, what drag is and isn’t, and the talented people that perform drag, we will be proposing a number of 792.72 Drag, which falls under the 792 Stage presentations.  In other words, drag will have its space so that readers can find information and understanding. 

While researching drag, it became quickly apparent that the topic of transvestism (306.778) needed to be addressed as well.  First, the term is outdated with cross dressing being the preferred term.  Secondly, referring to scholarly works and articles, it quickly became clear that the intention of cross dressing determines how the topic should be classified.  This led to many discussions with agreement to not only change “transvestism” to “cross dressing”, but to deprecate 306.778, and also create 391.68 Cross dressing, under the 391.6 Personal appearance classification. 

Of course, cross dressing is also related to gender identity.  Historically, Dewey follows current knowledge and accepted practices.  At one point, the topic of “gender identity disorder” was classified as a sexual disorder at 616.8583 under the broader mental disorders and next to sex addiction and sexual abuse.  Not only is this outdated, but it reduces individuals into medical specimens.  Once again referring to DSM–5, ICD–11, and various scholarly medical articles, I found that science is gaining a better understanding of the biological influences on gender identity, and the adoption of the term “gender dysphoria” is much more accurate and meaningful.  Gender dysphoria is more of an emotion based condition than an ailment, and acceptance and affirmation is the largest part of moving forward.  The DDC is crowded and finding just the right place was difficult.  With some input from gender nonconforming librarians, the proposal of expanding 616.8527 Depressive disorders (which already includes other emotional disorders) to become “Depressive disorders and dysphoria” (as there are 4 main types of known dysphoria) is supported and brings the topic more inline with today’s knowledge.

Knowledge is a powerful thing.  Expanding that knowledge is what libraries are about.  Maybe the knowledge in these topics will help someone understand their daughter or son, brother or sister, parents, friends, neighbors, or even themselves.  That’s what the DDC editors are here for—helping libraries help their users expand their knowledge.

On the other hand...

Consistency, standards, and respectful language are all goals of the DDC editorial team.  How do you achieve that when the subject at hand has different opinions with valid arguments?  You have the discussions, you do the research, discuss again, and ask for others’ thoughts on the matter.

The discussion topic we are currently having is the capitalization of the words “Black” and “White” when referring to racial groups.  We agree that “Black” should be capitalized.  There was no debate on that aspect among the editorial team.  However, the “w” in “white” remains debatable.  Reading many opinion pieces and articles by predominantly Black voices, there are a few questions we must answer to decide.  Some feel that a capital “W” forces the thinking of racial constructs, while others feel the capital “W” gives validity to white supremacy groups that also use the capital letter. 

Many publications and writing style guides are in disagreement as well.  The Chicago Style Manual (2020), 7th Edition of the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual (2020), The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the Center for the Study of Social Policy advocacy group all capitalize the “W”, while the Associated Press, The New York Times, and the Columbia Journalism Review do not, preferring the lower case “w”.  The MLA 9^th edition (2021) guides users to lowercase both terms.  Canada’s The Globe and Mail is using “Black” and “white” in its publications, while the United Kingdom’s The Guardian Style Guide uses “black”, but also recognizes authors may prefer “Black”.  Again, there is no consensus. 

From a library standpoint, the Library of Congress Subject Headings capitalizes “Black” but not “white”, and while Dewey is not a part of the Library of Congress, we do work closely with their classifiers.  If the DDC was to follow LCSH’s entries, it could make things easier in the future for any bulk changing within a library system. 

What are your thoughts?  What option would work best for your users?  We would love to hear your opinion on the subject.

EPC 143A exhibits available for review

In January, we'll have Electronic Meeting 143A of the Editorial Policy Committee (EPC). You can view the following revision proposals at oc.lc/deweyexhibits: 

• EPC 143A-S29.1 - 297.48 Sufi orders
• EPC 143A-S30.1 - Movement of people and 325 International migration and colonization
• EPC 143A-S73.1 - 730 Sculpture and related arts
• EPC 143A-S94.1 - Ionian Islands
• EPC 143A-T1.1 - Further updates to terminology for groups of people

EPC will be voting on these the week of January 30-February 3. 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 [email protected] or an EPC member.