Library Classification – The Free Decimal Correspondence…06.10.09

In case you are like me and haven’t heard about it, here is information about the relatively new Free Decimal Correspondence classification from the Everybody’s Libraries blog from John Mark Okerboom, “digital library architect and planner at the University of Pennsylvania”:

“…The Free Decimal Correspondence, or FDC for short, is a set of decimal numbers ranging from 000 to 999[.9999...], each associated with a particular subject, discipline, or group of subjects and disciplines.  It’s intended to be  reasonably compatible with existing and commonly used library decimal classifications and subject headings, but also as freely usable and adaptable as possible.

You can view or download it from this page…

Among other things, the FDC is considerably briefer than the DDC, with less detail and almost no editorial apparatus. It doesn’t include many of the subjects that DDC does.  It associates different terminology in many cases with the numbers than the DDC, and is not guaranteed to be compatible with present-day DDC.  (In particular, we have not consulted the DDC itself when preparing the FDC, except to identify unassigned numbers to skip over in the FDC.) We have made some attempt to be compatible with DDC, however…

I released the first version (0.01) on Public Domain Day, January 1, 2009, and have made some other releases since, the latest (0.05) on on May 16, 2009. As noted above, this version gives complete coverage down to the unit level.  There’s still some room for augmentation, though; for example, to include specific subjects that might be common in present-day libraries and institutional repositories but that aren’t defined at the unit level.

I don’t plan to provide long-term maintenance or support for FDC, however.  But since it’s public domain, anyone else is welcome to further revise, adapt, and support it…”

Open Shelves Classification Update…02.10.09

Here is an update on the Open Shelves Classification project from the Thingology (LibraryThing’s ideas blog): Open Shelves Classification Update post on LibraryThing:

“…Well we have been busy since Tim announced the classify-this feature. The OSC group has been extremely active with over 300+ posts about the top level categories (not to mention insightful threads popping up to discuss second level categories)…

 

We have been processing all your feedback and working on version 2.0 of the top level categories. Before we get to that, we wanted to let everyone know that we do read all the posts in the Open Shelves Classification group. Because of the high quantity of posts (and our day jobs) we cannot comment or respond individually as often as we would like.

Some key points after discussion, feedback and analysis:

-The number of categories in the top level. As decided last summer, we will have more rather than fewer top level categories. The top levels are not supposed to represent an even distribution of all possible branches of knowledge. Instead, the OSC top levels should represent the largest categories that public libraries will want to use. [Similar to how Library of Congress classification was built to meet the needs of the Library of Congress, while Dewey's system tried to contain all recorded knowledge.]

-Complaints about specific topics in the top level. Remember, there is no value judgment in a topic being placed at the top level or underneath a broader topic. For now, topics like Pets, Gardening, and True Crime are present because of feedback from public librarians that these are heavily requested books that are often pulled out into their own sections. As a guiding principle, the OSC will be statistically tested, so some of our top level categories may change as actual libraries begin to reclassify their collections.

-The nature of classification. Any classification system forces us to choose one topic for the book, even though that book may be about more than one topic. This is not a flaw in the OSC categories but in the nature of classification. Libraries will still use multiple subject headings in the catalog to capture all the topical aspects of the work.

-Facets. As talked about a few months ago, we currently plan on the top level categories being only topical while other aspects of the work will be represented by facets. For example, format will be captured in a separate facet. [And to clear up any lingering confusion, Comics will be a format facet.] Another facet talked about was audience. This means children’s books will be tagged in the audience facet. We envision that these facets will be optional and libraries can use them if, for example, they want to pull out all the comics and shelve them in a unique section. Alternatively, the facet could be ignored and then graphic novels would be intershelved with other like topics. Here is a picture of what we are envisioning:

-Classification versus Signage. The top levels categories have nothing to do with signage. This is particularly true with children’s books, which can be grouped/displayed as the library desires (e.g. picture books, infants, board books, etc.)…”

Open Shelves Classification Project Update…01.20.09

Here is an excerpt from the Planet Catalog blog from the Thingology (LibraryThing’s ideas blog): Open Shelves Classification: First draft live and at ALA Midwinter post on the status of the Open Shelves Classification project: 

“…Back in July I blogged to start something called the Open Shelves Classification, a free, crowdsourced alternative to the Dewey Decimal System, and created a Group for it. Soon afterward two librarians, Laena M. McCarthy of the Pratt Institute and David Conners of Haverford took over leadership of the project. For the past six months they and a growing contingent of LibraryThing members, some librarians, some not, have been working to come up with basic principles and working on pieces and on the numbering system. They’ve also done some interesting work testing the proposed top level against real library records. Much of their work is collected on the Open Shelves Classification Wiki. Laena did a nice post on the OSC on the Public Libary Association blog.
The OSC team has reached some agreement on a first drag of the ‘top level categories,’ some fifty categories that, it is hoped, all books fit into somewhere. And you are invited to help classify works in LibraryThing!…”

Finding DDC Numbers “Quick and Dirty”…09.25.08

Badan Barman posted “Classify Your Document with DDC by Using the Web” [http://lislatest.blogspot.com/2008/09/classifying-your-document-according-to.html] describing one fast method of finding DDC classification numbers which is quoted below.  There are other quick methods as well some of which I describe in detail in our departmental documentation for library resources management.  Anyway, here is the post:

“Yes, forget about Web Dewey, now you can find the DDC numbers over the web by other means also. I don’t think any of our LIS professional is following this procedure. It’s really interesting… Here is a simple way
1. Go to: http://isbndb.com/
2. Enter the title that is in your library and search.
3. Click on the most relevant title under the heading of “Books Matching (‘your enter title’)”.
4. Consult the ‘Dewey Class:’ or ‘LCC Number:’ under ‘Classification:’ Heading. This is your classification number you are looking for.
If you don’t find the Heading ‘Classification:’ or You find the Heading
‘Classification:’ but don’t find the ‘Dewey Class:’ or ‘LCC Number:’ then again
5. Click on any appropriate title under ‘Libraries this book has an entry in:’.
5. Now under the ‘MARC Record’ see against: 092: $a: or 082. This is your classification number you are looking for.”

New “Classify” Service from OCLC to Find Class Numbers in WorldCat…07.10.08

Yesterday on Lorcan Dempsy’s blog was a very interesting post [http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001702.html] about a new and potentially very helpful service from OCLC called “Classify” [http://www.oclc.org/research/researchworks/classify/] which he says “…is a prototype service which provides a snapshot of what class numbers (DDC, LCC, NLM) have been assigned to works in WorldCat…”  It is worth investigating further.  Access, however, to Classify will likely be for OCLC members.  You can test it out here: http://deweyresearch.oclc.org/classify2/

New Classification System–”Open Shelves” to Replace DDC?…07.09.08

Since LibraryThing (http://www.librarything.com/) is so popular among most of the power librarian bloggers and because ”Open Shelves” is promoted as a replacement for the DDC which I currently use, I thought I would copy this interesting, explanatory post yesterday by David Bigwood from his “Catablog” (http://catalogablog.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-shelves-classification.html) :

“LibraryThing is building the Open Shelves Classification [http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2008/07/build-open-shelves-classification.php], a free, ‘humble,’ modern, open-source, crowd-sourced replacement for the Dewey Decimal System.

The vision. The Open Shelves Classification should be:

• Free. Free both to use and to change, with all schedules and assignments in the public domain and easily accessible in bulk format. Nothing other than common consent will keep the project at LibraryThing. Indeed, success may well entail it leaving the site entirely.
• Modern. The OSC should map to current mental models–knowing these will eventually change, but learning from the ways other systems have and haven’t grown, and hoping to remain useful for some decades, at least.
• Humble. No system–and least of all a two-dimensional shelf order–can get at ‘reality.’ The goal should be to create a something limited and humble–a ‘pretty good’ system, a ‘mostly obvious’ system, even a ‘better than the rest’ system–that allows library patrons to browse a collection physically and with enjoyment.
• Collaboratively written. The OSC itself should be written socially–slowly, with great care and testing–but socially. (I imagine doing this on the LibraryThing Wiki.)
• Collaboriately assigned. As each level of OSC is proposed and ratified, members will be invited to catalog LibraryThing’s books according to it. (I imagine using LibraryThing’s fielded bibliographic wiki, Common Knowledge.)

I also favor:

• Progressive development. I see members writing it ‘level-by-level’ (DDC’s classes, divisions, etc.), in a process of discussion, schedule proposals, adoption of a tentative schedule, collaborative assignment of a large number of books, statistical testing, more discussion, revision and ‘solidification.’
• Public-library focus. LibraryThing members are not predominantly academics, and academic collections, being larger, are less likely to change to a new system. Also, academic collections mostly use the Library of Congress System, which is already in the public domain.
• Statistical testing. To my knowledge, no classification system has ever been tested statistically as it was built. Yet there are various interesting ways of doing just that. For example, it would be good to see how a proposed shelf-order matches up against other systems, like DDC, LCC, LCSH and tagging. If a statistical cluster in one of these systems ends up dispersed in OSC, why?”

Mmmmmmmm…. Very interesting and much to consider.  More in the future on alternate classification systems…