025.431: The Dewey blog

What’s in a note? Part 2

This is the second in a two-part series explaining the difference between similar notes you’ll find in the DDC. Part 1 focused on notes that describe what’s at a particular class: class-here and including notes. This part will look at notes that tell you to go to a different class: see references, class-elsewhere notes, and see-also references. Much like the relationship between class-here and including notes, these three give the same basic instruction, but there’s nuance to each. (Quick sidebar: What’s the difference between a note and a reference? Nothing! I don’t have a better explanation than that…)

A see reference is used for topics that logically belong in the class you find the note at, but for whatever reason is located somewhere else. Usually, it’s to give the topic a shorter number, or because the space it would otherwise go in is full or otherwise used.

For example, let’s look at 552.1-552.5 Specific kinds of rocks, which has five subclasses. I’m no geologist, but I remember from school that rocks are classified into three broad categories: igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. In the DDC, each of these has its own number under 552.1-552.5, as do two other categories: 552.2 Volcanic rocks and 552.3 Plutonic rocks. If you know your rocks, you might know that volcanic and plutonic rocks are subclasses of igneous. Sure enough, if you look at 551.2 Igneous rocks, there are two see references, pointing you to the respective numbers for volcanic and plutonic rocks. Since they’re see references instead of another type of note, that’s your cue that the topics logically belong together. Why did we give volcanic and plutonic rocks their own classes? Probably because there was enough literary warrant to do so.

Next up is the class-elsewhere note. They’re the workhorses of this type of note, and may be used for all sorts of relationships between topics. Check out that link to the Glossary for some of the cases in which we’d use one. The general idea is “you might expect this topic to be here, but it’s actually elsewhere.” Perhaps you could say the same for a see reference, but unlike see references, a class-elsewhere note doesn’t necessarily make any claims about the type of relationship between the topics.

For example, look at 374 Adult education. This number and its subclasses are about formal educational programs aimed at adults who already have some level of formal secondary and/or higher education. The first class-elsewhere note at 374 points to 331.2592 for on-the-job training. Since most people with jobs are adults, training given to workers often amounts to education of adults. But it’s different enough from what’s in 374 that it’s over in another discipline (in this case, labor economics). The second class-elsewhere note is for adult high school equivalency programs, such as the GED in Canada and the US. Since these programs involve secondary education, the DDC places them with secondary education even though they involve adult learners.

In both cases in the above example, you could imagine that if the DDC were being redesigned from scratch today, perhaps we would decide to put on-the-job training or adult high school equivalency programs with adult education. There’s enough of a relationship that we at least expect some classifiers might check there, so the class-elsewhere note helps steer you right.

Finally, the see-also reference. Unlike the other two notes in this post, a see-also reference links a topic to a class where it really doesn’t belong. There may only be a very loose relationship, or no relationship at all, between the two topics. Why bother noting these at all, then? It might be a case of homonymy, where the same or similar word has different meanings, or perhaps the topics are sometimes confused in everyday usage too.

There’s an example of a see-also reference at a recent development—the new number for conspiracy theories, 001.98. It has the note “See also 364.1 for conspiracy to commit a crime”. Conspiracy has a specific meaning in many legal and criminal codes. Like conspiracy theories, it stems from the basic definition of a conspiracy: two or more people collaborating on something in secret, often something nefarious. But people charged with criminal conspiracy may not have been engaged in any activity that’s the subject of a conspiracy theory, and not all conspiracy theories deal with activities that are necessarily criminal. From an editor’s perspective, I can imagine someone with a work on criminal conspiracy ending up at 001.98, perhaps from a keyword search, so I want to make sure they know to look elsewhere.

I hope this has been a helpful look at these similar types of notes. Knowing this, if you ever come across one of these in the wild that seems like it should be another type, feel free to reach out! You may well be right.

What’s in a note? Part 1

Most notes in the DDC do a pretty good job of getting across their intent in plain English (or in the language of your chosen translation). If you’re classifying a work on a given topic and find the topic in a note that says “class here” or “including”, you know you’re in the right place. If you see it in a note that refers you to a different number, you know you should head over there. A note by any other wording would do just as well, right? Not exactly. By minding the wording of a note in addition to just looking for the topics, you can get some valuable information about how to classify.

This is the first in a two-part series about some of the different types of notes that may initially sound like they’re saying the same thing, but actually have some important differences. First, I’ll compare the notes that tell you you’re in the right place (class-here and including), and the next will cover notes that point elsewhere.

A topic in a class-here note is said to approximate the whole of the class number. That doesn’t mean it’s identical, but it’s close enough that we probably won’t give that topic its own number in the future. For example, the caption at 597 is “Cold-blooded vertebrates”. Since reptiles and amphibians have their own numbers underneath, that mostly leaves fishes. Most of the numbers under 597 are about fish, except for those dedicated to reptiles and amphibians. We will probably never continue fishes and have separate numbers for fishes and (all) cold-blooded vertebrates.

You can add standard subdivisions for any topic in a class-here note, so 597.03 is equally valid for an encyclopedia of fishes or an encyclopedia of cold-blooded vertebrates. Class-here notes have hierarchical force, meaning they apply at the number where they’re given and all of its subdivisions. Another topic in the class-here note at 597 is “bony fishes”, which describes the vast majority of all living fish species. So an encyclopedia of bony fishes could also class at 597.03, and even as you go further down in 597, you don’t need to distinguish between cold-blooded vertebrates, fishes, and bony fishes.

What about including notes, then? Topics there still class at the number where the note appears, but they are topics in standing room; they do not approximate the whole. For example, let’s look at 595.387 Anomura. Anomura is a taxonomic group of crustaceans. Among other animals, hermit crabs are part of Anomura. But in the DDC, hermit crabs are in an including note there. Because they don’t approximate the whole, standard subdivisions cannot be added for hermit crabs. A zoological journal dedicated to Anomura would class at 595.38705, but a journal dedicated to hermit crabs would just be 595.387, with no standard subdivision.

There are two main reasons why we would put a topic in an including note—and sometimes it’s both:

1. The topic is just one smaller part of what’s in the class. Using the example of 595.387, there are many Anomura species that are not hermit crabs.
2. There were not enough works about the topic when we last checked (what we call literary warrant).

It’s important to note the part about “when we last checked”. If you ever come across a topic in standing room that seems like it obviously deserves its own number, you may well be right! Sounds like a great opportunity to contact us and get involved in the editorial process yourself! (See oc.lc/DeweyContributors for more information.)

I hope this has been helpful in explaining the difference between two notes that seem to do the same thing, but still signal important differences. Stay tuned for the next post on see references, class-elsewhere notes, and see-also notes.

Follow the Rules

"If all else fails, read the instructions."  Who wants to take the time to read the instructions when what needs to be done is "obvious"?   But sometimes what’s "obvious" turns out not to be correct.  For instance, last week I wanted to move a friend's car a few feet.  I found the car key, inserted it into the ignition, and turned.  Obvious way to start a car, right?  But there was no response.  It turns out that my friend's car is designed to start only when the brake pedal is depressed.  (Safety feature, I guess.)

What really was obvious about my futile car-starting attempt was that my efforts didn't work.  Sometimes failure to seek out and follow instructions will result in a noticeably different outcome from the one anticipated and desired:  The cake doesn't rise.  Nothing happens when you flip the switch.  Your computer freezes up.  But sometimes the incorrectness of an outcome that results from failing to follow directions isn't readily apparent. 

Since the assignment of an inappropriate Dewey number doesn't announce itself, starting with a knowledge of the basic rules that govern the DDC is important.  A knowledge of the basic rules is all the more important, because, as a general principle, the Dewey tables and schedules do not include instructions/reminders that are considered "standard operating procedure."

A common variant on "if all else fails, read the instructions" is "is all else fails, read the manual."  In the case of the DDC, the Manual is not where the basic rules of the DDC are recorded.  (The Manual contains notes that are too lengthy to be included in-place in the schedules and tables.)  It is in the Introduction that the basic rules of the Dewey Decimal Classification are found.  The Introduction is part of volume I of the print DDC 23 and is accessible from every WebDewey screen (indeed, you don’t even have to have a WebDewey subscription in order to access the Introduction from WebDewey or elsewhere).

Over the next little while, we are planning to use the blog to review basic principles that govern use of the DDC.  We will consider, for example, the rule of application and the rule of zero; we’ll review the difference between an interdisciplinary number and a comprehensive number; we’ll consider rules that govern the addition of standard subdivisions.  If there’s a specific rule or principle you would like to see addressed, please let us know by commenting on this post.

One Zero or Two?

We have been asked, why do I sometimes find 821.008 used for collections of English poetry, sometimes 821.08?

Before DDC 17 was published in 1965, 821.08 meant collections of English poetry.

After publication of DDC 17, 821.008 meant collections of English poetry, and 821.08 meant English light and ephemeral verse, including greeting card verse.  Many libraries, however, kept using 08 instead of 008 for collections of poetry.  They made very little use of 08 for light and ephemeral verse. 

With publication of DDC 22 in 2003, 821.08 became obsolete.  Light verse was relocated to 821.07, joining the humorous and satirical poetry already there.  Ephemeral verse that is not light or humorous, and greeting card verse, were moved to the base number 821.  821.008 continues to mean collections of English poetry.

The number 821.008 Collections of English poetry is built with 82 (following the instruction at 820.1-828 Subdivisions of English literature) plus 100 (following the instruction at T3B--1001-T3B--1009 Standard subdivisions; collections; history, description, critical appraisal) plus 8 Collections of literary texts from the add table at T3B--1-T3B--8 Specific forms. 

We know these instructions can be confusing; for that reason, we supply many built-number examples in WebDewey that you can copy or use as a model. For example, if you browse in WebDewey for 821 you will find these and other built numbers:
821   English poetry 
821.008   English poetry--collections 
821.00803543   Love--poetry--English literature--collections, . . . 
821.0080355   English poetry--social themes--collections, . . . 
821.008036   English poetry--nature--collections, . . . 
821.0080382   English poetry--religious themes--collections, . . . 
821.009   English poetry--history and criticism 
821.04   English poetry--lyric poetry, . . . 
821.0708   Humorous poetry--English literature--collections, . . . 

Unbalanced Spans

We’ve received a number of queries lately about the “disappearance” of records under certain spans in WebDewey. This problem is associated with unbalanced spans (spans in which the notation at each end of the span is not at the same level of the notational hierarchy). In each case, the records are still in WebDewey, but don’t appear in the hierarchical display because of a clash between the hierarchical display algorithm and the unbalanced spans in the underlying data. For example, if you display the record for the unbalanced span 709.012-709.05, you won’t see the individual records associated with this span in the downward hierarchical display, but the records are indeed still in the database. The easiest way to see a list of the individual records is to hit the browse key associated with the record for the span, which then displays all the records in a sequential list in the browse window.

An unbalanced span is an example of a convention that works in the print presentation of Dewey table and schedule entries, but is less effective in the electronic presentation of the data. The browse trick is a temporary workaround. We do not plan to do more work on the WebDewey display algorithm itself in order to address this problem, which affects some (but not all) of the unbalanced spans in the system. Instead, we plan to undertake a project shortly to eliminate unbalanced spans in the underlying Dewey data.

WebDewey Tricks

What are your favorite tricks for decoding built numbers using Webdewey?  My favorite involves a shorthand that I use to keep track of how a number is built.  Let’s say I am checking the number 155.418232.  I copy and paste the number into the Browse Dewey Numbers (with Captions) box and get these results:

155.4182   Individual psychology 

155.418232   No partial match, see nearby terms

155.41824   Adaptability--psychology--children, . . . 

155.41825   Character development--psychology--children, . . . 

Since I did not find the number, I copy and paste it into the Work Area, then insert a plus sign at the point where I believe that the number-building begins (right after the nearest- match number): 155.4182+32. Then I look at the nearest-match record: 155.4182 Individual psychology.  In the upward hierarchy I see that the number is a subdivision of 155.4 Child psychology. In the Notes field I find the add instruction: “Add to base number 155.4182 the numbers following 155.2 in 155.22-155.28, e.g., moral development 155.41825, personality tests for children 155.41828.”  I copy the “numbers following” number (155.2) into the Work Area after the plus sign, placing brackets around those digits so that I will remember that they are not part of the built number: 155.4182+[155.2]32.  I can now see clearly that the final 32 comes from 155.232.  I browse Dewey numbers with captions for 155.232 and find 155.232 Traits, which has “introversion” in the including note.  The built number 155.418232 Traits in child psychology has recently been mapped to the LCSH “Introversion in children.”

Winton has recently explained some built music numbers. Here with links to his explanations are the numbers plus the shorthand that appears in the Work Area if I analyze the numbers.  Since 1 is used as a facet indicator in the 780s, the plus sign often comes before a 1.  The 1s and 19s in these numbers come from add tables.

784.22184 Symphonies for orchestra with vocal parts

784.22+1+[784.1]84

785.68196 Percussion ensembles for six players

785.68+19+[785.1]6

784.713857198 Arrangements for string orchestra of music for string ensembles for eight players

784.7+1+[781]38+[78]57+19+[785.1]8

Lambiek Comiclopedia

Tips are back!!!  Here's one from Juli:

You have in hand a collection of previously published comics--you are not sure if they should be treated as comic books (741.59+) or comic strips (741.569+). The publisher does not tell you where the material was originally published. The author’s name is unfamiliar. What geographic notation to add? Maybe you cannot find an authority record for the author, or maybe the authority record does not give you as much information as you need. What is a handy place to look for more information? Try Lambiek Comiclopedia. The Lambiek Comiclopedia describes itself as “an illustrated compendium of over 7,000 comic artists, listed under last name (or pseudonym).” It gives brief descriptions of comic artists, with brief samples of their work, and has links to web sites with more information. The Lambiek Comiclopedia is maintained by the Lambiek comic shop in Amsterdam. We in Dewey Manor find Lambiek Comiclopedia very useful, but we do not rely on it as much as we rely on, for example, Ethnologue for languages. We have provided a sample title list to help classifiers learning to use the new development at 741.5: Sample Title/DDC List: 741.5 Comic books, graphic novels, fotonovelas, cartoons, caricatures, comic strips. That list is not intended to be exhaustive, but we do welcome suggestions for additional titles.

Elliptical trainer

Those tips went down so well the other week, we thought we'd come right back at you with an even hotter one.

Q: I looked in the Relative Index of the print version of DDC 22 for the number for works about librarians, and it told me 020.92. But when I checked on WebDewey, the caption at 020.92 says it's for works about archivists. What's going on?

A: The number 020.92 is a built number, constructed by taking the base number 020 for Library and information sciences, dropping the terminal zero, and adding the "biography" number —092 Persons from Table 1: Standard Subdivisions. It isn't listed in the schedules of the print version of DDC, but it does have its own entry in WebDewey, where the caption is given as "Archivists, ..." The comma and ellipsis in the caption indicate that more than one Relative Index term is associated with the number, and that the single term given in the caption (in this case, "Archivists") is simply the one that comes first when those terms are ordered alphabetically. A complete list of Relative Index terms associated with a number is given at the bottom of that number's WebDewey display. Three terms are associated with 020.92: "Archivists," "Information scientists," and "Librarians."

The form of the caption for built numbers in WebDewey is explained in the WebDewey User Guide, in the section "WebDewey Record Structure," under "Caption":

For each DDC number in the schedules, tables, and manual, a caption (heading) defines the subject or subdivision that number represents. For built numbers, the caption given is the first Relative Index term (in alphabetic order) associated with that number. Therefore, if a built number contains more than one Relative Index term, note all the Relative Index terms associated to it; all associated Relative Index terms can apply to that number, not merely the alphabetically first Relative Index term associated to the built number in its caption. ... Captions with ellipses. Captions that end with ellipses occur only in records for built numbers. Built numbers do not appear in the DDC schedules but are constructed according to add instructions stated or implied in the schedules or tables. WebDewey uses the associated Relative Index term as the caption for a built number. If multiple Relative Index terms are associated with a built number, the first term in alphabetical order appears as the caption, followed by ellipses. (Ellipses, which also appear in browse results, indicate that more than one Relative Index term is associated to a given built number.)

Thanks to Arlene Taylor for the original idea for this tip, and to Winton and Juli for the details of the answer.

Tip top

We mentioned a few weeks ago that we had decided to discontinue updates to the Tips section of the Dewey web site in favor of sharing advice through this blog instead. To get things off the ground, we have a bumper selection of three tips for you today. 1. Wear a hat: it's getting cold. 2. Glenisla Mist (12-1) in the 1:30 at Sedgefield. 3. Class Richard Wilbur's Collected poems, 1943-2004 (Harcourt, 2004) at 811.54. The third might require some explanation, so (courtesy of our resident expert, Giles), here goes.

Literary works in the DDC are classed first by language, not by country of origin. However, literary works in English originating in North America, South America, Hawaii, and geographically associated islands are classed in the development for American literature in English at 810, not 820 English literature. Richard Wilbur is a United States poet, and his comprehensive number therefore begins with 811 -- where the 8 indicates the main class of Literature, the first 1 indicates the language (English) and national affiliation (American), and the second 1 indicates the literary form (poetry). To complete the number, we must determine the period in which Wilbur flourished, taking account of this Manual note on Literary periods to be found among the notes on Table 3A (Subdivisions for Works by or about Individual Authors):

"Use only one literary period for an author and all of the author's works, including works that may have been published earlier or later than the dates covered by that period. Determine the literary period in accordance with scholarly consensus about when an author flourished. For example, class an author commonly regarded as an early-19th-century writer as such, even if the author published literary works at the end of the 18th century. In the absence of scholarly comment, use the weight of bibliographic evidence to determine when an author flourished. For example, class an author who published one novel in 1999, one novel in 2000, one in 2001, and one in 2002 in the literary period beginning with 2000. If the period when an author flourished cannot be determined, use the date of the author's earliest known separate literary publication, disregarding magazine contributions, isolated student works, and juvenilia."

When did Richard Wilbur flourish? From the table of periods for United States authors given under 810.1–818 Subdivisions of American literature in English, we have three choices: 1900-1945, 1945-1999, and 2000-. Wilbur's first book, The beautiful changes and other poems, was published in 1947. He's had several collections published with a date range in the title starting with 1943 -- for instance, as well as Collected poems, 1943-2004, there's Poems, 1943-1956. And the latest such collection was published in 2004. But, given the three periods that are available for selection, there wouldn't seem to be much question that the one in which Wilbur flourished is 1945-1999. The notation for 1945-1999 is 54, so 54 can be added to 811 to give the comprehensive number for Richard Wilbur: 811.54.

The comprehensive number is the number for all collected works, critical evaluation, or biography of Wilbur. Should it also be applied to individual works by Wilbur, even if those works are published outside the period indicated by the number? The answer is "Yes," but only in the case of works of poetry that were written in English. From the Table 3A Manual note on Comprehensive numbers for authors, and numbers for individual works:

"Use the same national affiliation and literary period for comprehensive works and for all individual works of an author; however, use the language and form appropriate for each individual work, even if different from the language and form selected for the author's comprehensive number."

So both Collected poems, 1943-2004 and Mayflies (Harcourt, 2000) should be classed at 811.54 rather than 811.6, even though both were published in the period 2000-.

Thanks to Elizabeth Erlich for her original question!

Tipping points

I wrote about the DDC's treatment of terrorism just last Friday, so I'm not going to revisit the issue again today other than to say it's very much on our minds, as are the victims of terrorism around the world. Today, I'll just make a pitch about Dewey tips.

The OCLC web site is a mine of information for Dewey users. One feature that you might find particularly useful is the archive of Dewey tips. There are two kinds of tips -- Classification tips give advice on how to handle general problems that Dewey classifiers might encounter, while WebDewey tips give suggestions for users of the electronic versions of the DDC. A new tip is published every week, and you can even subscribe to an RSS feed that will alert you as soon as the tip hits the web site.