025.431: The Dewey blog

2023 Dewey print DDC now available

By Jen Noel, cross-posted from the WebDewey Community Center

The 2023 Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) in print is now available. Notable additions to this year’s version include new and updated topics and subtopics—such as Islam, pandemics, historical periods—and a new hierarchy for graphic design and design disciplines at 744.

The newly updated DDC also incorporates more diverse perspectives and voices. This includes efforts led by our first Editor-in-Residence to update terms to better reflect the experiences and perspectives of underrepresented groups, as well as the addition of new topics related to diverse cultures and communities. By incorporating a wider range of perspectives, the DDC is better equipped to serve the needs of diverse users and communities.

By upgrading to the 2023 print DDC, you can ensure that your library is using the most current classification system available.

Get the 2023 Dewey print DDC

What does it take to change something in the DDC?

Great question, and I’m glad you asked!

The DDC is always in a state of review.  These reviews may be one of several different reasons, but some of those could be the result of the presence of sufficient literary warrant (in a nutshell, at least 20 published works on a subject), a change of terminology as language and meaning evolves, or even a change in geopolitical boundaries.  Regardless of how the change is started, the process is the same for the suggested updates.

An idea is proposed to the editor and then the work begins.  A review of the topic’s treatment within the DDC and other systems, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) or subject-specific systems, such as Homosaurus, is made.  Is there disagreement or consensus across the platforms?  What is the best way to address the subject’s classification within the DDC?

Finding the literary warrant for the subject is then needed and if the current classification gives the best possibility of discovery by users.  Also examine the more specific subject headings under the broader Dewey classes. Would the proposal make a better classification home for multiple works?  Are there any historical reasons for the current classification?  This has to be considered as well when making changes.

Let’s say that there is enough literary warrant for a better classification for the subject’s works.  What happens next?  Decisions need to be made!  Is this something that needs a change to an existing topic or is it a new topic that isn’t covered within the DDC?  Either choice will also mean that you need to have a plan in place, especially if the change of classification could potentially be disruptive to the library systems that use the current number.

It's time to create the exhibit, or draft proposal, to showcase your work on the topic.  It doesn’t have to be long, but it does need to have an explanation of the current treatment of the subject, your research on the topic, and your recommendations for change (templates are available for this).  Submit this exhibit to the editors and they will take it from there.  There may be long discussions about the proposed change/addition, or a quick consensus to moving forward or the need for revision before further submission.

From here, your proposal will be submitted to the Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) which consists of ten librarians from around the world who give their input on acceptance or the need for revisions.  EPC meets online and in-person several times a year to vote on these proposal exhibits.  After a period for public comments, and if EPC determines that the exhibit is complete and correct, the DDC editors publish the changes in WebDewey.

We’d love to have your input on making the DDC more reflective of what is needed.  You can do this by emailing your suggestions to [email protected].  You can also check out https://sites.google.com/view/deweycontributors to see examples of the process.  We’d love to hear from you!

Help us prioritize with the WebDewey Functionality Survey

We’re constantly working on improvements to WebDewey. Some changes are in the works already, while others we have some idea of solutions but could use some help setting priorities. That’s where you come in!

The WebDewey Functionality Survey is live until Wednesday, April 19. It’s designed to be short and sweet, with five types of enhancements that you’ll rank from highest to lowest priority. And of course, there’s also a blank prompt where you can request any other sort of updates to WebDewey. (You’re always welcome to make suggestions for topical coverage in the DDC, but this survey is focused on WebDewey.)

I hope the survey will be largely self explanatory, but since I have a whole blog post to work with here, I thought I’d go into some more detail about the idea behind these five items.

A: Making number building in WebDewey easier

I love WebDewey’s number building tool, but I know some users prefer to build by hand. There are so many ways to build numbers in DDC that there will really never be a perfect number builder, but like WebDewey as a whole, it’s something we continue to iterate on. Where the number builder can’t follow the steps correctly, our developers can tweak the tool so it can. Prioritize this if you do a lot of number building… or especially if you try but run into trouble.

B: Have more built numbers available in WebDewey

Spoiler alert: we’re always going to be adding new built numbers regardless of how this item does! But it will still be helpful to know how desirable this is compared to other possibilities. Prioritize this if you, like me, take a “the more the merrier” approach to available numbers.

C: The ability to search WebDewey with special characters and punctuation

For better or worse, WebDewey search is not Google. While many characters beyond a basic Latin alphabet are supported, you may still run into issues. For example, the screenshot we used in the survey shows how you can find results by copying and pasting the LCSH form Qurʼan, but none with Qur’an. Can you see the difference? I can’t, as I write here in Microsoft Word! The latter uses the single quotation mark found on most keyboards. It works in Wikipedia, but not WebDewey. Prioritize this if you often find yourself running into problems like this.

D: The ability to filter recent changes in WebDewey by project

When the update notification feature was rolled out, we added the functionality to be able to search or filter updates by specific projects, usually EPC exhibits. We already used such codes internally. For example, any record changed as a result of EPC 143A-S94.1 Ionian Islands would have the code “EPC 143A-S94.1”. You can do that now, but in the process, you’ll sometimes see other internal codes that don’t have much meaning for a WebDewey user. I’d like to clean this area up a bit before really touting it. Prioritize this if you like to follow EPC’s work and want to get a sense of everywhere that a given project touches.

E: Clickable links in over-over hierarchy boxes for quicker navigation in WebDewey

You know how you can hover over those downward arrows next to a number to get a quick view of the subdivisions (or children) of that number? If not, you do now! This can be a great way to glimpse at other numbers up and down the hierarchy and save you some clicks. This enhancement would take that a step further, making those numbers clickable links to let you hop directly to numbers of interest. Prioritize this if you make good use of WebDewey’s hierarchy (good for you!) and want to expedite that process.

I’m optimistic that eventually, we’ll get to all of these, but we’ll be looking for your feedback to help prioritize.

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.

Welcome, Kathryn Becker!

I am delighted to announce that Kathryn Becker joined us this week as our second Editor in Residence.  She will be in the position for six months. I will be working with her to identify a topic area that she will focus on, though she will also be contributing to regular editorial work. She is currently considering examining Western bias, religious bias, or LGBTQ+ topics as her focus area.

Kathryn graduated from Texas Woman’s University last year with an MLIS and a concentration in cataloging and technical services. She has worked in education in various roles for the past 10 years.

Thanks to the US Navy and Department of Defense, she has lived on both coasts of the US, plus Italy and Singapore, with her husband of 30 years. She is also a mother to two adult children, who live and work in Texas, and one Italian dog who will do anything for pasta.

I hope you’ll be hearing more from Kathryn in her own words here on the blog, and otherwise see her handiwork in some of the exciting developments we have planned in the DDC world this year. Welcome, Kathryn!

New Table 2 notation for Bangkok

With the exception of a cold snap around Christmas, it’s been a very mild winter here in Washington, DC. Still, it’s nice to think of somewhere warmer. Bangkok, perhaps. We had a request from Jamie King, a public librarian in Illinois, to provide for Bangkok in Table 2 due to high literary warrant.

According to Wikipedia, “Bangkok is among the world's top tourist destinations, and has been named the world's most visited city consistently in several international rankings.” It’s also a major example of a primate city. That’s a fun concept to share with any geography nerds in your life (I say, as one of them), where a city is disproportionately large in population and influence within a country. In fact, Bangkok is ten times larger than Chiang Mai, the country’s second largest city.

You see where I’m going with this. This week, we authorized T2—5933 Bangkok, continued from T2—593 Thailand. Now you can express Bangkok wherever standard subdivisions are used. While the basic structure of 930-990 is built from Table 2 anyway, we also explicitly gave 959.33 Bangkok, for the history of the city, and special provisions to express specific concepts (e.g., ethnic groups) or time periods in it.

When we develop a country in Table 2, we usually give all of its first-level subdivisions, which the editorial rules allow. Why didn’t we do that with Thailand? The simple answer is that with more than 70 provinces, it would have taken a while, and there’s strong literary warrant for Bangkok now. In consultation with volunteer Winton Matthews, we identified the 3-subdivision specifically as where we’d put Bangkok anyway if we had developed for the whole country. And again, because of its importance, it would have had four-digit T2 notation directly under the main Thailand number regardless.

There’s one other country where we’ve given a single subdivision in Table 2. Can you find it?

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.

Genrifying with DDC

A colleague shared a blog post with me: Genrify your Catalog, not your Collection! Written by Leanne Ellis, a School Library Coordinator for the New York City Department of Education’s Department of Library Services, it’s a great quick read on some of the pitfalls you can encounter if you ditch classification altogether—but it also has some helpful tips for getting the best of both worlds.

Many of the benefits touted by libraries who have genrified their collections are not incompatible with an organized classification system. I’m thinking of more eye-catching signage, more colloquial labels, or shelving attractive covers facing out. All of those are ways you can promote usage of your collection without sacrificing the organization you get with a classification system.

Reorganizing a collection is no trivial task, so there’s a lot to be said for drawing on some of the advantages of a genrified system without losing out on the organization and interoperability you get with the DDC and other classification systems.

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has tried methods like this and what your results were. And of course, we can still improve things on the editorial side! If you have ideas for changes you’d like to see in the DDC, I hope you’ll get in touch.

Apply to be the 2023 DDC intern

I'm very excited to announce the second DDC Editor in Residence, the program that began this year with Kelly West! This iteration of the program will be a full-time internship running May through August 2023.

You can find the full position description on the OCLC jobs page. To summarize, we're looking for a current MLIS student or recent grad who will choose a topic area of interest, review the DDC's coverage, and create one or more proposals to improve the classification. The candidate will work with me and EPC to do so.

We plan to have this position be in person, based out of the Library of Congress, with some flexibility. Note that the position description says "U.S. Work from Home" only because the Library of Congress is not an OCLC office, and that we are aiming for in-person work.

There is no set deadline for this position, so if you or anyone you know is interested, I encourage you to apply!

DDC editions: what’s in a name?

The data you see in WebDewey today is part of Edition 23. So was the data when this edition was launched in 2011. Of course, it’s changed a lot in the intervening years, hence last year’s update to MARC fields for DDC numbers to provide date information.

There is no edition 24, and no plans to designate one. Keen-eyed users may have noticed that we launched the annual print-on-demand (POD) DDC in 2018, seven years after the release of DDC 23. Seven years was the typical period between printed editions. Coincidence? Well, yes. All print-on-demand DDC still uses DDC 23 data.

Now, in bibliographic terms, each new year’s POD version is a new edition, such as you’d record in a bibliographic field 250. And sure enough, there are records in WorldCat for each POD version to date. (Good job, catalogers!) But you’ll still see me scrupulously calling them POD versions rather than editions to avoid this sort of confusion.

As a historical note, this idea of multiple bibliographic editions for the same DDC edition is not unprecedented. Edition 15, for example, was initially issued as the "Standard Edition", but after negative reception, a "Revised Edition" was published, still Edition 15 in DDC terms.

Register for January 2023 eCourse: Using WebDewey and Understanding Dewey Decimal Classification

Time flies! It's almost time for another class of Using WebDewey and Understanding Dewey Decimal Classification, brought to you by ALA Publishing in cooperation with OCLC. Dewey Senior Editor Alex Kyrios will serve as the instructor for this 4-week facilitated eCourse starting on Monday, January 2, 2023.

Participants will gain a comprehensive grounding in Dewey Decimal Classification® (DDC) principles and practices. Starting with the basics, this eCourse will teach you how to:

• Navigate within WebDewey to determine appropriate DDC numbers
• Build numbers using the WebDewey number building tool
• Apply numbers that help patrons browse your library

Plus, experienced users will benefit from guidance building more complex numbers and learn how to make more effective use of WebDewey. Lessons are asynchronous so you can review course materials and complete exercises as your schedule allows.

To learn more and register for this eCourse, please see this page. You may also consider the three-course Practical Classification and Subject Access Cataloging Bundle, which adds courses on Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), with a savings of 25% compared to the three courses individually.

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.

Autism in the DDC

I don’t quite remember what recently brought “An Autistic Take on DDC”, a blog post on the ALSC Blog, back to my screen. It was written in 2018. It’s still a very thoughtful take on the subject, and the author knows how to flatter (“The Dewey gods”!).

The post’s main criticism of the DDC’s treatment of autism, as I understand it, is the medicalized perspective the DDC takes. Numbers about autism and autistic people are almost exclusively found in the medicine schedules, or disability elsewhere. This is also reflected in built numbers, such as 362.19685882 (valid, but not currently in WebDewey) for social services to autistic people, built with 616.85882 Autism.

This is as good a time as any to remember that any given topic might fit in plenty of places in the DDC beyond where they’re explicitly mentioned. The author of “An Autistic Take” pines for books about autistics in 323 Civil and political rights, but he need not wait: 323.374 is a suitable place already for civil and political rights of autistic people.

Now, the caveats: when classifiers overlook valid numbers, that may be a sign that we could improve some things from the editorial side. And it certainly doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement. With autism not mentioned anywhere in T1—08 Groups of people, it may not be apparent that autistic people can be expressed via T1—0874 People with mental illness and disabilities. Even if it is apparent, I wouldn’t blame someone for being dissatisfied with that notation.

What’s the best solution here? That’s what I’d like to ask you. What sort of works does your institution have on autism and autistic people? Does current coverage of the topic in the DDC meet your needs? If not, I welcome your feedback, or would be happy to work on a proposal with you.

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.

Dewey Decimal Classification – 10 years in Sweden!

Guest post by Harriet Aagaard

We celebrated the anniversary with a delicious chocolate cake at a Dewey reference group meeting last year.

The National Library of Sweden started using Dewey in 2011. 10 years of use is something to celebrate, but due to the pandemic we have postponed the celebration until November 10 2022. We plan to host a seminar celebrating the anniversary.

The Swedish translation and the transition from SAB, a Swedish classification system, to DDC was done during 2009-2011. The Swedish translation is not a full translation into Swedish, but a mixed translation. In 2011 about 40% was translated into Swedish, while 60% remained in the original English. Today about 67% of the Swedish WebDewey is translated to Swedish. The goal is to translate all.

Most Swedish cataloguers have a good knowledge of English, but it turned out to be complicated to search for subjects with both Swedish and English index terms in the Swedish WebDewey. In 2014, I gave a presentation about the pros and cons with the Swedish mixed translation at the annual European DDC Users Group (EDUG) meeting.

The National Library and university libraries started using DDC instead of SAB in 2011, but most of the public libraries and school libraries stuck to the SAB system. Still today only about 20 public libraries use DDC. Among them are some public libraries in the larger cities – such as Malmö, Gothenburg and Umeå – but not the largest public library, in Stockholm.

Public libraries and school libraries have smaller collections as well as a larger proportion of Swedish books in their libraries, which reduces the need of a very detailed classification system. They have continued to use SAB – even after 2014, when the SAB classification system was no longer updated. Sweden is a small country, and both the Swedish Library Association and the National Library decided that it would not be possible to keep updating two national classification systems.

How is it possible to use a classification system which is no longer updated? SAB differs from DDC in several ways:

• Instead of very specific codes, the SAB system uses several codes to describe the topic or topics.
• New subjects are often easy to fit into broader subject categories.
• Since the SAB system was developed in Sweden it is easy to fit in specific Swedish subjects.

However, without national coordination, classification practice regarding new subjects can vary at different libraries. This is in some way counteracted by using the same catalogue and sharing records. Since 2018 public libraries in Sweden are a part of Libris, which makes it easier to co-operate on SAB classification in an informal way. On the other hand, it would also be easy to co-operate on DDC classification.

Another problem is that it is difficult to find new cataloguers with a good knowledge of classification with SAB.

Most Swedish libraries use the national union catalogue Libris, for cataloguing and importing records to their local catalogues. University libraries import a lot of records from other countries to Libris and most of these records are already classified with DDC. The transition from SAB to DDC took a lot of effort, but it has paid off well. Classification is a time-consuming task and sharing classification codes with other libraries in Libris nationally as well as internationally is efficient.

Harriet Aagaard is an administrator/librarian at the National Library of Sweden and the current Secretary of EDUG.

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!

Standard subdivisions and the WebDewey number building tool

Since so much number building in the DDC involves standard subdivisions, understanding how they work with WebDewey’s number building tool is important for any classifier.

First, remember a couple of basics about using standard subdivisions:

• You can use them anywhere unless instructed otherwise
• You should not add one standard subdivision to another
• Where a zero is already used for subdivisions of a number in a schedule, use double zeros for standard subdivisions

As always, the number builder can be very powerful, but it’s not at all hard to create invalid numbers with it. Whenever you’re building a number that doesn’t have other instructions, WebDewey will take you to Table 1. When you’re just starting out, that’s good. But just because WebDewey takes you there doesn’t mean you can necessarily add standard subdivisions.

Try this: go to any potential base number in the schedules without its own add instructions. There are many possible numbers you could use—if you need a suggestion, 636.01 works. Click START in the number builder, and sure enough, you’re taken to Table 1. Now add a single standard subdivision (again without instructions of its own), say T1—05. Click ADD and you’re taken back to Table 1.

The rules of the DDC prevent you from adding further standard subdivisions, but the number builder allows it. Why is that? My #1 reason is that the number builder will never be perfect, and we’d rather let you build some invalid numbers than not build some valid ones. As a local adaptation, you might also choose to ignore the prohibition against adding multiple standard subdivisions, though the EDIT LOCAL button is a better way to handle such practices.

The way the number builder improves is constant iteration. If it prevents you from building a valid number, I want to hear about it so we can look into fixing it! But I hope the above example shows you that building invalid numbers isn’t too hard to do. Beyond standard subdivisions, you can still report cases like that, but we’ll keep erring on the side of letting you build.

If you’re interested in more on this topic, check the blog’s tag for the WebDewey number building tool.