025.431: The Dewey 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.

Table 2 updates: Kosovo and the Philippines

The changes approved at EPC 143 include two substantive updates to Table 2. We have provided new notation for Kosovo, and updated the previously incomplete coverage of Philippine provinces.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008 as the Republic of Kosovo. Roughly half of the world’s countries recognize Kosovo as independent. Serbia considers the area to be the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, part of Serbia.

The new notation for Kosovo, T2—49719, has both Kosovo i Metohija and Republic of Kosovo in its class-here note, indicating that the notation can be used regardless of where one falls on this divide. It follows the DDC’s principle of organizing Table 2 by geography rather than political boundaries necessarily.

Discussion at the EPC raised the interesting question of what this change meant for the neutrality or impartiality of the DDC. Does adding such notation not implicitly take a side, and say that Kosovo is independent? The change was not motivated by a desire to take a side, but we recognized that not making a change might also be seen as implicitly taking a side (i.e., that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was illegitimate).

More informed people than me have written on whether libraries are, can be, or should be “neutral”, often with very different ideas of what that means, but the case of Kosovo in the DDC certainly feels like a case where true neutrality – think not naming any country – would greatly hamper utility.

Over in the Philippines, things are much more straightforward, at least in that it was just a matter of giving fuller coverage of the country in Table 2. With the recent changes, we’ve gone from seven Table 2 numbers under T2—599 Philippines to 102!

Unlike many countries, the Philippines has a clear basis for organization in Table 2 before political boundaries: its islands. Indeed, besides T2—59916 National Capital Region (former caption: Manila), all of the notation previously only went as far as four digits, for major islands and island groupings.

The recent changes were primarily about providing for the country’s 81 provinces, though we also accounted for the 17 organizing regions. Most of the provinces were previously in including notes. T2—5991 Luzon island and adjacent islands was particularly crowded! Here’s how it looked in the print DDC 23:

My thanks to the user in the Philippines who got the ball rolling on this some time ago. What’s next for Table 2? Expect some expansions in South Asia and Central Asia, along with some updates for countries that have reorganized, like Morocco and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

Outdated terms in the DDC: Aliens

Now that EPC 143 has concluded, you should already be seeing changes published to WebDewey. Last week, we rolled out the first batch of changes analyzed by our editor-in-residence, Kelly West. There’s more to come, but this batch specifically focused on the use of “aliens” for people resident in a country in which they aren’t citizens. (Not extraterrestrials, but the confusion there is one reason “alien” is becoming deprecated in the field more broadly.)

The saga of the LCSH “Illegal aliens” has been told frequently, to the point where it is presumably the only LCSH with its own Wikipedia article. The short version: it was most notably critiqued by a group of student activists at Dartmouth College in 2014, and over 7+ years, it was eventually replaced. The LCSH had been mapped in WebDewey, and was replaced there after the Library of Congress made the change.

While the DDC never used the exact phrase “illegal aliens”, we still had several places where we used “aliens”. The case against “illegal aliens” was more than that exact phrase. Alone, “aliens” tends to conjure up images of extraterrestrials – notably, non-human beings – and in general, it’s never good if you’re alienated, or experiencing alienation. Kelly’s EPC exhibit included further research on this, along with other potentially problematic terms.

We have now greatly reduced the use of “aliens” in the DDC. In most cases, it was replaced with “Noncitizens”, similar to what the Library of Congress did. We attempted to avoid unique coinages though, so we preferred existing terms such as “Foreign labor” to the novel “Noncitizen labor”.

The only place you’ll still see “aliens” (in this sense) is in the Relative Index. The see-also reference there to Noncitizens tells you that this is a nonpreferred term. There is a strong argument for completely removing potentially offensive terms like these in user-facing systems; the term’s use in the Relative Index doesn’t change that. But it’s still a term classifiers are likely to run into, whether in older works or in legal contexts where the exact word is used.

The index entry continues to provide access for classifiers, while pointing to the correct, current term. We also reduced the appearance of “aliens” in the index to just the interdisciplinary number (305.90691) and the standard subdivision (T1—08691), so we replaced terms with subheadings like “Aliens—literature” with “Noncitizens—literature”, etc.

Expect to see similar changes in the future, both in the shorter term from Kelly’s work and in the longer term as we continue to ensure the DDC’s terms for people are accurate, current, and respectful.

Results of EPC 143

The Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) met virtually in June to consider the slate of exhibits finalized back in May. Most were approved, and you’ll be seeing them rolling out into WebDewey in the coming weeks. (One is already there! More on that soon.)

Two exhibits were sent back for further work:

• EPC 143-S29.1c - 297.48 Sufi orders
• EPC 143-S30.1 - 304.8 Movement of people

For EPC 143-S29.1c, there was consensus among the committee that more specific Sufi orders should be provided for, beyond those proposed in the exhibit. We welcome feedback from users around the world, or anyone with interest or expertise in the topic, even if they aren’t users, to help represent Sufi orders that are frequently the subject of published literature.

On EPC 143-S30.1, the topic is just complicated! Where do you class a work on immigration to a specific country, emigration from a country, or works that cover both? When does a work on immigration belong with community sociology or political science instead of the interdisciplinary number? We’ll revisit the issue at the next electronic EPC meeting, towards the end of this year.

Keep checking the blog for posts highlighting specific changes from EPC 143 as they’re added to WebDewey, but keep your eye on the WebDewey updates feed too, as not every exhibit will necessarily lead to a blog post.

Last but certainly not least, there are a few new (and returning!) faces joining EPC, and that will lead to a blog post!

Now is your chance to participate in the Dewey Priorities Survey

The Dewey Decimal Classification is a valuable resource and keeping it current is important to all of us. We work with users like you to constantly improve it, to make the system more valuable across cultures and types of libraries.

To better learn what’s important to our users we invite you to participate in a brief Dewey priorities survey.

Please note that this survey will close on 11 April 2022.

We look forward to hearing from you!