At last year’s virtual ALA Annual, I presented a discussion paper to the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) around the issue of modernizing citation of DDC numbers in the MARC formats. I summarized the issue in a blog post then. In short, the problem was to better express the recency of a DDC number when you could only cite the edition number—and we’ve decided not to designate new editions in the future.
MAC response to the discussion paper was positive. Reinhold Heuvelmann of the German National Library (DNB) suggested a different approach that would expand the existing subfield $2 in DDC MARC fields rather than designating new ones. Then, at this year’s virtual ALA Midwinter (the last one!), I presented a formal proposal to implement these changes, using the same basic approach as the discussion paper, plus the DNB’s feedback. That proposal was approved, and its recommendations are now live with the June 2021 MARC update.
To review these changes, see the documentation for the MARC Bibliographic 082 field. I think of this as the “bread-and-butter” DDC field; you’ll see the same sort of changes in other DDC fields, such as Authority 083. As of this writing, the changes are in red. The main change is the redefined subfield $2:
$2 - Edition information
Information on the edition from which the DDC number was assigned. If DDC numbers are assigned from more than one edition, each DDC number or range of numbers is contained in a separate 082 field. If the DDC number is assigned from a printed version, record edition number (use “23” for print-on-demand), a slash (/), the language of the edition, a slash (/), and the year of publication or printing. If a DDC number is assigned from an electronic version, record edition number (use “23” or “22” for WebDewey, as appropriate), a slash (/), the language of the edition, a slash (/), and the date on which the DDC number was assigned by the cataloger. Languages are recorded according to the three-character codes in the MARC Code List for Languages. Dates are recorded according to Representation of Dates and Times (ISO 8601) in the pattern yyyymmdd.
|
082
|
00$a792.8/2$223/eng/20190402
|
What does this mean for your practice? That depends on if you’re using WebDewey or a printed version (either the traditional, published editions or a more recent print-on-demand version).
WebDewey: Keep using 23 as the edition number (unless you’re using DDC 22!). After a slash, add a language code. Note that this is the language code of the DDC you’re using, not the language of the resource or the language of the cataloging. If you’re reading this, it will probably be “eng” for English. Then add a further slash and whatever the date is as you assign the number. A macro or other shortcuts like the constant data in OCLC Connexion could help with this. Because the date is recorded in ISO 8601 format, it’s not wrong to give only the year, or only year and month. But it’s good to be precise.
Print: Keep using 23 as the edition number (unless you’re using an older edition). The print-on-demand versions, which were introduced in 2018, are all considered edition 23, like WebDewey. After a slash, add a language code. If the cover of your print DDC says “Dewey Decimal Classification”, it’s probably “eng” for English! Then add a further slash and the publication or printing year of your print DDC. That’s easy if you’re using print-on-demand, since they’re named for their year of printing. Otherwise, just check the title page. (Hint: the print DDC 23 is 2011.) Don’t record month or day in this case.
Like any change, this means some adjustment. A priority for this change was that it be backwards compatible: any MARC record out there with just an edition number is still valid, even though it provides less information than the current standard. I’m excited that with these changes, catalogers everywhere will have more detailed information about the “provenance” of assigned DDC numbers.
Recent Comments