025.431: The Dewey blog

Recent updates for political ideologies

In this post, I’d like to highlight a couple of exhibits approved at EPC Meeting 145 earlier this year: EPC 145-S32.1 Radicalism and EPC 145-S32.2 Christian nationalism. They were entwined enough that they might have been a single larger exhibit except for quirks of timing. The former was completed before work on the latter began.

EPC 145-S32.1 began in response to classifiers in Europe and the US asking for a clearer place to class works on far-right or radical right-wing ideologies. Political ideologies aren’t subdivided by left-right spectrum in DDC, partially due to how that spectrum differs, sometimes wildly, across countries. A natural place for ideologies labeled right wing is 320.52 Conservatism, but as some of these classifiers brought up, far right ideologies can diverge from conservatism, especially on the idea of “caution in effecting social change”, to quote our definition note.

Investigating this question, we noted that 320.53 was something of a catch-all for radical ideologies, though its former caption of “Collectivism and fascism” didn’t make that entirely clear. The exhibit brought radicalism from the class-here note to the caption, so now you’ll find 320.53 Radicalism, collectivism, fascism in WebDewey. We also authorized two new subdivisions, for left-wing and right-wing radicalism.

What makes a political ideology radical? The DDC does not seek to answer that, only to provide a place for works about ideologies considered radical. We also figured “radical” was rarely the most salient way to describe an ideology, and put in notes to suggest another number be used when applicable.

Meanwhile, EPC 145-S32.2 modestly expanded 320.55 Religiously oriented ideologies, which previously only had a single subdivision for Islamic ideologies. This exhibit began as an attempt to provide a place for Christian nationalism. We ended up drawing heavily from existing treatment of political Islam in doing so, identifying both social theological (261.7) and political ideology (the new 320.553) classes depending on disciplinary treatment.

We also decided to be a bit cautious, leaving Christian nationalism in an including note at both numbers, as it’s just one political ideology drawing from Christianity. There was enough literature to justify some development here, but not so much that we can’t afford to wait a bit. Better to have the topic in standing room now and later move it to a new number than putting it in a class-here note now and later deciding it’s getting conflated with other ideas.

Take a look at these changes in WebDewey, or in print-on-demand beginning in 2025, and let us know what you think. And for those of you about to celebrate US Thanksgiving—may politics come up at the dinner table no more than you want, even (especially?) if that’s none at all.

New historical periods for Ukraine

One of the recent changes from EPC Meeting 145 is an entirely new development for the historical periods of Ukraine. Previously, Ukraine’s historical periods were primarily built using the table at 947.5-947.9 European countries of former Soviet Union other than Russia; Caucasus area of Russia. That’s a long caption, but it accurately conveys what’s within, namely, that European countries (besides Russia) formerly part of the Soviet Union shared historical periods, which closely followed those of Russia itself.

The exception? Ancient history, where Ukraine to the year 640 classed at 939.52 Sarmatia. This left no way to represent Ukrainian history from 640 to 1796, although some classifiers did so by adding the respective period notation from Russia, following the spirit, if not the letter, of the 947.5-947.9 table.

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, shared historical periods for these countries made more sense, as each faced common issues with reestablishing independence. But 30 years later, some differentiation was called for, especially in the case of Ukraine with Russia’s invasion of the country. Our colleagues at the Library of Congress came to a similar conclusion, recently redoing the history of Ukraine in Library of Congress Classification (LCC).

The change in the DDC was driven in large part by former Editor in Residence Kathryn Becker. Together, she and I investigated the LCC changes. We’re also indebted to Dr. Slava Zavalin, assistant professor of library and information science at Texas Woman’s University and a former teacher of Kathryn’s, for his input.

Trying to fit new historical periods into the existing framework of 947.707-947.947.708 would have been difficult. We proposed a complete revision, like LCC had done, which EPC ultimately agreed to. The new development can be found at 947.701-947.706 Historical periods of Ukraine. This also means you should be able to tell at a glance when a work on Ukrainian history was classed, as 947.707-947.708 are no longer valid.

One special number I’ll highlight is 947.7062 2014-, which covers the larger Russo-Ukrainian war that started in that year as well as the 2022 invasion and ongoing conflict. An instruction there authorizes addition from the “war table” at 940-990, allowing classifiers to build numbers such as 947.70622 for diplomatic history of the war, 947.70627 prisoners of war, etc.

When classifying works on the Russo-Ukrainian war, don’t forget to refer to the guidance at the 930-990 Manual note. Most works on the war will class at 947.7062 unless they fit one of the exceptions noted there, e.g., everyday life in Kyiv province during the period 947.77062, effect of the war on life in Russia 947.0864.

How about the other countries that add from 947.5-947.9? We decided to take things one step at a time, and will be happy to work with anyone who’s interested in creating developments for those countries’ historical periods. I think Ukraine will be a good precedent for totally redoing those countries’ periods, but if we can maintain backward compatibility with the numbers built from 947.5-947.9, that’s good too. Stay tuned!

You can explore these changes in WebDewey, and they’ll appear in print-on-demand versions from 2025 onward.

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.

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!

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.

“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.

Updating Dewey: a contributor's journey

Guest post by Steph Hooton

Compared to other professions, there aren’t a lot of books available in communication design. So, as a communication design practitioner, whenever I come across an interesting volume, I buy it. Over the years, after visiting countless new and used book stores, antique stores, and library, estate, and yard sales, I’ve managed to accumulate quite a few volumes — over five thousand, in fact.

While I didn’t plan on owning a personal library, it’s proven to be indispensable — and a challenge to organize. So, a few years ago, I decided to copy the experts and arrange my library according to the Dewey Decimal Classification system. This worked out great at the beginning, but as I worked through my holdings, I discovered that many communication design works were assigned to numbers scattered across the entire breadth of the DDC system, that no particular area within the DDC system had the depth of numbering needed to classify them, and that a significant portion of the DDC system’s communication design nomenclature was outdated, archaic, or incomplete. 

Given the fact that communication design as we know today didn’t exist when the DDC was created, and coupled the dramatic growth and evolution the field gone through over the past several decades, these circumstances weren’t too surprising. But, what to do? Well, since information design and typographic hierarchy are inherent disciplines my field, I set aside my shelving and got to work figuring out what was needed. Then, even though I’d always thought of the DDC system as firmly established and constant, I reached out and asked OCLC if they might be open to making some updates.

Their response was immediate, professional, gracious, welcoming, and positive. I was invited to contribute my ideas and work with OCLC experts. What followed has been over five years of extraordinary collaboration: objective, wide-ranging research; careful, thoughtful analysis; and respectful, professional advancement in documenting, planning, and updating the information architecture for communication design within the DDC system. 

To anyone shelving books in a library, thinking “this book really belongs in that section over there,” I recommend sending your insights and suggestions to OCLC. Your contribution will be appreciated, and may help people all over the world have better organizational access to knowledge.

For myself, I look forward to continued collaboration with OCLC, and to resuming the shelving of my publications — this time, in their newly built homes.

Relocations and discontinuations: Graphic design and communication design

As promised, this post has tables of relocations and discontinuations (plus one continuation) associated with the recently approved EPC Exhibit 143-S74.1. Enlarged from what was already given in the exhibit, these tables can serve as quick guides to reclassification for your institution. Where numbers have been deprecated, they are given in square brackets. Authorizations are not separately listed; all numbers in 744 are newly authorized, as are 741.647 and 741.6474.

Where a number is deprecated, you should be safe to reclassify any items without further inspection. That's the case for most changes listed below. Otherwise, consider the context of the item. For example, interdisciplinary works on typography are being relocated from 686.22 to the new 744.47, but if you have works at 686.22 that are really about the older sense of typography (i.e., strictly concerned with printing techniques), they may not need reclassification.

Also, check any built numbers you have that may be affected, especially where the old number is being deprecated. An encyclopedia of pure and applied design and decoration now classed at 745.403 will move to 744.03. Simple enough, but in some other cases, a topic has been relocated into standing room. For example, works on counterfeit stamps at 769.56 that now have standard subdivisions added will now be relegated to just 744.72. Finally, if you used abridged classification, keep in mind that these tables are geared towards full classification. WebDewey will still have full segmentation marks available to help guide you. In abridged classification, for example, page design is relocated from 686.2 to 744.5.

Relocations

From	To	Topic
686.22	744.47	Typography (interdisciplinary works)
[686.224]	744.452	Typefaces (interdisciplinary works)
[686.2252]	744.5	Page design
741.6	744	Graphic design
741.674	744.78	Posters (comprehensive works)
[745.4]	744	Pure and applied design and decoration
[745.61]	744.42	Calligraphy
[745.66]	744.62	Heraldic design
[745.67]	741.647	Illumination
745.7	741.6	Coloring books
[769.55]	744.73	Paper money
[769.559]	744.739	History, geographic treatment, biography
[769.56]	744.72	Postage stamps and related devices
[769.561]	744.72	United Nations postage stamps, postal stationery, covers
[769.562]	744.72	Counterfeit postage stamps, covers, cancellations
[769.563]	744.72	Postage stamps commemorating persons and events
[769.564]	744.724	Postage stamps depicting various specific subjects (Iconography)
[769.565]	744.72	Covers
[769.566]	744.72	Postal stationery
[769.567]	744.72	Postmarks, cancellations, cachets
[769.569]	744.729	History, geographic treatment, biography
[769.57]	744.72	Stamps other than for prepayment of postage

 

Discontinuations

From	To	Topic
[686.221]	686.22	Typefounding and typecasting—printing technology
[686.224]	686.22	Typefaces—printing technology
[686.2253]	686.225	Hand composition
[686.2256]	686.225	Imposition and lockup

 

Discontinuations without meaning in context

From	Topic
[686.2247]	Specific typefaces and kinds of typefaces for the Latin alphabet
741.6	Commercial art

 

Continuation

From	To	Topic
740	744.4	Typographical designs

Save the date: New graphic design hierarchy

Have you heard? The largest changes to the DDC schedules since the designation of Edition 23 back in 2011 are fast upon us! The changes were recently approved by the Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) in Exhibit 143-S74.1 Graphic design and communication design. Most notably, this set of changes authorizes 744, a section which has sat vacant since Edition 17 (1965). Created alongside Steph Hooton, a professional designer, this makes the DDC a leader in modeling the emerging discipline of design. The work builds on a previous discussion paper on the topic prepared for EPC by Hooton and former editor Violet Fox.

Among other changes, these updates clarify treatment of illustration and design, which have been heretofore conflated at 741.6. The full exhibit still gives a good idea of what you can expect, but keep in mind that like any exhibit on our Google Drive, it was a proposal only, which EPC is free to amend. In this case, EPC's amendments include a fuller development of the forthcoming 744.7 Graphic design products, to which paper money (769.55) and stamps (769.56) are being relocated, since they don't really belong with the art of printmaking. The mockups of print schedules that we use in exhibits also don't do as good a job of showing the deprecation of numbers, which especially affects 686.22 Typography in the printing schedules (the short version: much of this is being relocated to the new hierarchy).

In the past, changes of this magnitude once approved would be set aside for the next print edition. Since we don't have formal print editions anymore, you can just log in to WebDewey one day and see them. In this case, that day is Tuesday, August 16, just over two weeks from today. Keep your eyes on the blog for a forthcoming list of relocations and discontinuations, just like those that helped guide major changes in full print editions.

Since print-on-demand (PoD) content is pulled once a year, the new 744 will first show up in the 2023 version. This is a good time for a reminder of the recent updates to DDC MARC fields, since there will be a period of a few months where classification of these topics from WebDewey vs. even the most recent PoD will differ quite a bit.

Finally, a couple of caveats about the publication: publication will occur the day before, on Monday the 15th, and history notes in WebDewey will reflect that date, but any time we publish, the changes don't actually become visible until the next day. And while many eyes have reviewed (and are continuing to review) these changes, there will always be the occasional typo, so it's possible there will be some additional tweaks in the days after.