23 Choice of a Classification Scheme: General versus Special schemes
Dr M P Satija
0. General qualities of a library classification system
The selection of a classification scheme is an important matter, especially with regard to the variety of ways in which the system chosen will affect the library service. In choosing, we should look ahead for its long term employment. A library and its classification system supposedly have a lifelong relation. Judicious choice of such a tool is pretty evident. Before discussing the question of its choice, let us rehash the qualities of a good classification system. A classification system should be (Philips,1961):
1. covering the whole field of knowledge as represented in books in the library, and is sufficientlysubdivided
2. known widely, in order that users are already familiar with it. There are many advantages to readers and the staff when many libraries in the region are arranged in the same way.
3. available from a centralized, national or international cataloguing agency.
4. systematic, proceeding from the general to the particular.
5. formulated with due regard to the needs of books, aiming to provide a place for every type of publication.
6. capable of further extension and subdivision, as our knowledge grows.
7. logical and in an order convenient to the user in its arrangement of the classes and subdivisions; and brings together closely related classes
8. clear and comprehensive in terminology used, and must be accompanied where necessary by full definitions referring to the scope of the classes and equipped with notes for the guidance of the classifier.
9. evenly developed with judiciously apportioned notation, and should allow alternative locations for certain subject or classes.
10. equipped with:
a) Generalia and Form classes; form and geographical divisions.
b) An effective notation. The notation should fit the scheme (not the scheme the notation) and may include mnemonic devices. Has the simple notation, for ease of inserting and finding the classified entries
11. expansive, both in plan and in notation.
12. laid out in a form easy to handle and consult, to assist the user to grasp the hierarchy. These days a living classification is also expected to be in electronic media.
13. revised regularly, but not too frequently; available easily at a moderate price.
14. having extensive indexes of the concepts and terms in the schedules and other tables
15. having its own system of book numbers
1. Choosing a classification system
From time to time, new libraries are established. Which classification should these adopt for shelf arrangement? There is no perfect scheme. Nevertheless, the different schemes do all have distinctive characteristics which make them better suited to particular types of collections, materials and users.
The question is again largely one of suitability. In advance countries most cataloguing is done now from MARC records, so the fact that these nearly all contain an LCC call number, and a DDC number for most books in English, puts considerable pressure on the librarian of a new library to adopt one or other of these schemes. But in India copy cataloguing is not practiced. One important factor will be a form of peer pressure: what similar libraries are using? For example, in the USA LCC is the choice preferred by most academic libraries, whereas in India DDC is almost universal in choice. Similarly, a new public library in most English speaking countries would probably adopt DDC, which is rather more suited to the needs of the ordinary user than is LCC.
1.1 On the bandwagon
There are also advantages in the reader finding, say, in a local public library the system to which he has become accustomed. Main and its branch libraries must use the same system. Of course, this will only be approximate; no two libraries are likely to make identical decisions perpetually. Uniformity in this respect tends to disregard the character and the ‘literary warrant’ of individual collections. There is, nevertheless, a very strong case nowadays for as much uniformity as possible in general libraries; the administrative advantages of this are many.
1.2 Special libraries
The question of choosing a classification for special libraries arises more frequently. It has also been suggested that the adoption of a uniform system of classification throughout all libraries would be quite unsuitable to the special librarians due to uniqueness of their stock. Many special libraries find themselves in the position of finding very little of their intake covered by MARC records; there is in this situation not the same pressure to adopt one of the two major classifications. UDC may well be the preferred choice, because its many auxiliaries tables make it well suited to the kinds of specialized materials likely to be added. Now that its standard edition is available and is kept up to date more effectively, it may well be the best choice, particularly for libraries dealing with science and technology. For a very small special library, say on leather technology, , the possibility arises of devising a special classification to serve the needs of the organization and its members as specifically as possible. No existing scheme provides the right emphasis, in terms of citation order or even order within facets for this kind of library.
1.3 General libraries
Opportunity to select a classification scheme for a large library is rare. This usually happens because a collection has never been classified, because a local, in- house classification has been used or, less often, because collections using different schemes are being merged as happened with the Jawaharlal Nehru University Library, New Delhi.
2. Factors in choice:
Choice of classification for a library is a matter of policy which however depends upon the following conditions:
2.1 The subject of the collection
It is expected that general classifications treat all subjects equally, but this is not necessarily the case. Most are stronger in some areas than others. It is not just the level of detail that is at issue; the provision for fringe topics and the general collocation of subjects need also to be taken into account. This can be decided by looking at the schedules of the different schemes and seeing how they correspond to the needs of the library.
In general terms UDC has the best provision for scientific subjects, whereas LCC contains very considerable detail in the social sciences and humanities, particularly in respect of naming individual writers, artists, persons in history, events and classic texts of all kinds and in all subjects. DDC probably has the best balance between subjects, with less detail but fewer obvious shortcomings. The CC was once considered good in social sciences, but alas! no more. For a very large subject specialist collection it may be better to choose a special scheme if there is a well-established one available, like the ACM Computing Classification System(1999)
2.2 The level of the material
Two factors come into play here. The first concerns the amount of detail in the chosen scheme; the second concerns its number building capacity to express micro subject content. A scheme with a modest vocabulary but with auxiliary schedules and facilities for number synthesis has a very much greater number of potential classes.
The real issue is in whether the subject requires great specificity in the hierarchy, i.e. whether the vocabulary itself is very technical and detailed, or whether the subjects of documents are complicated in terms of their content analysis. In the latter case, capacity for combining terms is really essential, particularly if most of the terms are likely to be sought terms in retrieval. An analytico-synthetic scheme has much to offer if this is the case, and we should look for the capacity to combine notations, either through a faceted structure or by means of numerous auxiliary tables.
2.3 The format and forms
The same considerations will apply if the material is in unusual formats, for example, ephemeral material or non- book material of various kinds such as:
1. Online and e-resources
2. Non-Book material: AVs, maps,
3. Theses, dissertations and reports,
4. Patents, Standards, Codes,
5. Fiction and Biographies
6. Special/Personal Collections, say
a) Local history
b) Ashutosh Collection,say
7. Special Corners, e.g.,
a) Gandhiana
b) Government documents
c) World Bank Publications
The subjects of documents such as these are likely to be more complex, and essentially there needs to be some way of expressing these different forms to bring them together. If the classification or indexing language is required to provide metadata for digital resources, this will also create a need for considerable precision and flexibility in the scheme.
2.4 The classifier
The experience and level of professional education of the staff also affect the choice of system, as some schemes are easier to apply than others. A scheme such as LCC requires little more than copying from the schedules, whereas the CC and UDC will need some understanding of issues such as deep subject analysis and citation order. Such a scheme also often requires an advanced understanding of the subject to classify it properly. DDC with its extensive instructions in the Introduction and the Manual and class definitions can aid the inexperienced. Where there is help on hand, and more experienced classifiers to train and advise, this will be overcome, but in a small organization with not many classifiers, this can be a pressing problem.
2.5 Copy cataloguing sources
In such a situation copy cataloguing or the downloading of bibliographic records is a sensible solution, and may anyway be considered for reasons of cost. There are so many online catalogues with free access to bibliographic data, as well as subscription bibliographic services, that it can be a considerable saving in time and effort to outsource cataloguing. Classification is slightly different and more complicated in terms of using external data, and certain factors will affect local decision:
• In a general library choice will almost certainly get restricted to using DDC or LCC since these are the only widely available schemes from centralized services.
• Classifiers in a special library may be able to copy classification data from the online catalogue of another special library , but that will bind them to accept their choice of classification and all the decisions they make about its details and synthesis power.
A related matter is the coverage of any special or unusual materials held by the library. Which can also affect the usability of the general schemes. If the library has lots of ephemeral resources or other unusual formats that won’t appear in other libraries’ catalogues, much of the advantage of copy cataloguing is lost. For these reasons many libraries that choose to take records from external sources do so only in respect of their cataloguing, and do classification locally.
2.6 Tool for information retrieval
Classification for other than shelf arrangement is probably more significant for special libraries or those operating at the research level than it is for the general collection. A faceted and detailed classification will be invaluable in a situation where it is required to manage bibliographies, printed lists or search results, or anywhere where a detailed analysis of resources is required. The notation can also be of concern where retrieval rather than shelf arrangement and browsing is the purpose of the classification. A hierarchical and faceted notation aids retrieval; enables search and retrieval on facets in a built class numbers. This can be particularly important in a special or technical library with large amount of micro documents and non-book material. This serves the needs of those users who are at the most demanding level of information storage and retrieval.
2.7 Notation
Users in special libraries will probably take trouble to learn and manipulate any classification or indexing system, but the same can not be assumed of students or of the general library users. Here simplicity and usability of the scheme take much greater priority. Supporters of DDC often project the simplicity of the scheme as its great virtue, but in reality even the broad structure of the scheme is not evident to the general user. What does seem important is that the filing order of the system should be relatively simple, so that users can find things easily. The use of odd symbols as in the CC and UDC will undoubtedly confuse all, except Ranganathan. Brevity of notation is also important in remembering class numbers between the catalogue and the shelf. For cerebral reasons numbers are more memorable than letters, although of course numerical class numbers will be longer than alphabetical notation for the same level of detail. Much of this depends on how sophisticated is the use made of the catalogue by the users; those who search in a complex way will appreciate the advantages offered by a more complicated system like the CC. The more casual user will simply be confused by it.
The major purpose of the classification in a traditional library is the physical arrangement of the items, and for many users the brows-ability function of the classification is most important. They probably never use the catalogue and mostly rely on the collocation of items to find what they need. For these users the general structure of the scheme is what aids their use of the library collection. In such cases the broad structure of the classification will be an important factor in its adoption.
3. The general versus the special scheme
The classifier of a special library may find many advantages in using a classification specifically designed for the subject of the library. There are special classifications for the majority of subjects, but most of them are not very well known. There may be many disadvantages as well as benefits in adopting one. There are some very well established special classifications: the National Library of Medicine scheme and the Moy’s classification for law books, or Art and Architecture Thesaurus are three thought randomly. Points in favour of adopting a special scheme as summarized by Vanda Broughton are as follows:
• The special scheme will offer a much more detailed vocabulary.
• The general order of subjects and arrangement of fringe disciplines will be tailored to the needs of the specialist users.
• The scheme will make provision for special forms of publications.
•It may be possible to find an online catalogue for a comparable specialist collection which can be used as a source of classification data.
But on the other hand:
• The arrangements for maintenance and revision of the scheme may not be comparable with those of the general schemes.
• The scheme may not be updated as regularly.
• There may be no formal arrangements to support copy cataloguing or to provide bibliographic services.
•There may be very limited opportunities for training in the scheme, or for other sorts of advice and support.
For the library that has a lot of material not covered by the big publicly available OPACs or that is not in national bibliographic services, the advantages of better structure and detail can be very attractive. Certainly in major areas such as medicine or law the greater number of user institutions can provide reassurance about the continued currency of a special classification.
4. Print or electronic medium
A major decision that needs to be taken by the library is the medium of the classification system. These days popular classifications are available to the user both in print and electronic formats, and there are advantages and disadvantages attached to each. Here are the verbatim views of Vanda Broughton(2004).
4.1 Advantages of print format
It is a general feeling that the print version of a classification system is much easier to use especially for novice classifiers. It offers a better sense of the structure of the scheme and the context of individual classes; it is easier to browse the schedule, and it is easier to compare one part of the scheme with another. It is also much easier to annotate a hard copy of the scheme – an important factor if some micro material is to be classified, lots of local decisions have been made, or local modifications have been inserted. Class numbers for new subjects can be added as they occur, without waiting for editorial decisions. If a scheme has lots of alternatives those not chosen can be marked so. In other words, a hard copy can be customized in a way that an electronic version cannot. From a narrower management point of view, a hard copy incurs a one-time cost (until the library decides to update) and it is usually cheaper than an online subscription. This advantage is diminished if a lot of people do the classifying, since a single working copy cannot be very widely shared, and if amendments have to be reproduced in several copies the chances of mistakes become more likely.
One enduring advantage of a hard copy is its of stability and ever availability. Large libraries do not very often reclassify when a scheme is revised, except perhaps to address particular thorny problems in restricted areas. It is often heard that ‘we use 19th (or 20th or whatever) Dewey’, by which is meant that specific edition of the scheme, which remains in operation even when a newer version is available. In an online classification this function is lost, since the classification is constantly amended and is potentially not the same from one day to the next. In theory libraries cannot continue to use an ‘old number’ since the ‘old number’ will have been removed.
4.2 Disadvantages of print format
On the minus side the print version is obviously bulkier, cannot be easily moved around, and is more prone to damage and physical deterioration. It is not updated so frequently, and this may be problematic in a rapidly changing subject. On the other hand, locating the correct class is slower and can be frustrating at times. One also has to consider whether publishers will continue to maintain paper copy in a digital world.
4.3 Advantages of web based systems
In the matter of currency the online subscription has everything to commend it. The user gets the benefit of additions to the scheme, and this can be a real advantage in a fast-moving subject. Revision is much more frequent than the revision of the print version. Online classifications have overcome many of the limitations mentioned by Professor Broughton in 2003. Now these have become more versatile and have added many useful and imaginative features as mentioned by Dr. Aida Slavic (2008):
· searching and browsing of classification notation is easy
· facilitates searching notation through associated verbal expression
· sort and display of entries in many modes is possible
· there is automatic tracing of hierarchical and associative links and relations
· tracing of rules to the area of their application is quick
· navigation between tables, facets and subject areas is easy
· tracing historical data through a scheme’s lifespan (Historical notes) is possible
· various outputs, exports and byproducts are generated
· identification of classes independent of notation is possible
· it is easy to maintain, edit and publish as printed editions of various details
These days print editions are one of the many byproducts of the electronic database of the system maintained at its editorial office.
5. Applying the chosen system
Choosing a system is one thing. Applying is another. Much depends on the expertise of the classifier to make optimal use of the system with all its shortcomings. Apart from applying this tool correctly there are many other questions to be decided as a matter of policy. These are:
5.1 Study the system:
In most situations the work of selecting a classification has been done long ago and the present task is to apply it consistently and to maximum effect. This means that the system must be thoroughly understood in its entirety. Its outline, hierarchy, method of subdivision, citation order, notation, index and mnemonic features should be thoroughly grasped. The classifier should certainly take pains to fully comprehend the scope and character of the system elected to be applied. “Library classification depends for its success far more on the goodwill and reasonableness of those who have to work it than upon its own logical perfection”, says Professor Raymond Irwin, as quoted by Maltby. The newcomer to classification is apt to make many mistakes, especially in subject analysis. Another prevalent mistake is to broadly classify the subjects for which there are detailed sub-divisions. One also sees even worse elementary mistakes. Notations are copied incorrectly or are confused. A thorough study of the scheme in its entirety would prevent many errors of this kind.
5.2 Centralized classification services
Many large libraries or library systems do their technical processing at a single place. Such a service may save staff time and reduce costs, but it has other solid advantages, too. For example, it promotes high and consistent standards of classification and cataloguing. The mother of such services is the Library of Congress, which has carried out this kind of work since the beginning of the 20th century. In Britain the foundation of the British National Bibliography in l950 eventually provided the stable basis for such a service. The Indian National Bibliography (1958-), which uses both the CC and DDC, being always terribly behind the schedule, is of no use for copying catalogue records. In the classification sphere DDC has been used by the BNB, but more recently in strict accordance with the official provisions of its current edition. The arrival of MARC21 records in the bibliographic arena also has implications for classification. There are now many compelling reasons for libraries to use the classification as provided by the national bibliographic service, or at least keep sufficiently close to its practice to be able to integrate with it, if required. The whole concept of such a service provides a very powerful reason for standardization in all the technical processes. But still the standardization has not been achieved. There is bound to be increasing pressure to conform to accepted standards in the future. Those who do not will not be able to reap the full advantages offered by a national central bibliographic service. What is more it is clear that MARC record can or could accommodate three or four numbers by different classifications for documents, if necessary, although this may increase the time and cost of preparing the record. The DDC, LC and sometimes UDC will be represented.
5.2.1 Copy cataloguing
The central issue is usually whether the classification data available from external sources is acceptable to the home library. As regards the choice of scheme, a library that wishes to copy records must resign itself to either LCC or DDC as the system of choice, unless it is a specialist collection with some appropriate national collection providing bibliographic services. The National Library of Medicine(USA) is the obvious example here, but others are difficult to find. The availability of records from the Library of Congress and OCLC has undoubtedly caused many libraries to adopt those schemes, and for a general collection this may be a sensible choice with some considerable savings in terms of time and money. Other libraries will find that, though the scheme may be acceptable at a general level, the particular decisions made do not match local requirements very well and the classification part of the bibliographic record has to be amended. If this is likely to happen to a large extent, then the library should consider whether there is any useful purpose to be served in adopting the classification from an outside agency. The service could still be used to provide cataloguing data, but the classification of choice could be employed for subject access.
5.3 Broad versus depth classification
Classificationists will often plead that their scheme offers as good an arrangement as we are likely to get and that unauthorized adaptations are thus to be avoided. There arises the question in general libraries: should the chosen scheme be used as it stands or only in part? If our library is not a large one, is it necessary to go further than a thousand places- the three-figure position of DDC? Would not further subdivision mean unwanted details and cumbersome long call numbers ? Further, even if there is a real advantage in depth classification, this may be neutralized for the users because they cannot understand or remember a long class or call number? ‘Classification, like the value of π (Pi) is never perfect, no matter how far extended? The constant growth of collection makes specific placing inevitable in all collections except extremely small ones. Classification should be carried as far as is necessary to define and indvidualise the subject matter of the books; otherwise specific themes will be intermingled and hidden in broader groups. Sooner or later, in nearly every growing library, the full classification will be needed and retro-alterations to class numbers on older stock is costly in terms of money and time. Thus to classify minutely, if not an immediate practical necessity, may well be an ultimate economy, provided that the library adheres to the classification originally selected. C. A. Cutter’s advice ‘be minute . . . be not too minute’ is not altogether conclusive, because it is difficult to say what being too minute means. The more positive rule, ‘Classify a book in the most specific heading that will contain it is preferable; because, if this is observed, it must bring the whole classification into play, says Maltby. For Ranganathan, broad classification is a regressive step. He always advocated full classification from the day one.
5.4 Abridged editions
Certainly, a small library may group its material only broadly. Broad arrangement is often found in school libraries and in children departments of public libraries, where it is adequate to provide younger readers with a simplified plan of the system in use and enable them to easily comprehend the basics of the classification in use to organize books. The DDC and UDC, chiefly through their abridged editions are quite adaptable for service in such small units. To help in the meaningful cutting of class numbers, DC numbers also appear in appropriate segments on centralized cataloguing records and in the WebDewey. It is wise to use an officially abridged edition. The library can switch over to the full edition later if the collection so demands. The Abridged DDC is a true abridgement of the full edition without any incongruity between the two.
5.5 Adaptations
Should we apply classification as it stands? Or will it be wise to adapt it to our own library’s needs and adjust classes which are considered to be awkward or inadequate? As some local modifications are often made in schemes, this question is important. In part, this is due to the weakness of one kind or another that a librarian can see in the chosen scheme. No classification is universal in the real sense, not even near to it. There are myriads of topics which do not find mention in a system imported from abroad. Hence modifications are inevitable. There is no university library in India using the DDC which has not made its in-house extensions for the subjects like Indian history, Indian philosophy and the like. DDC is inadequate for these subjects and for Indian music, Indian religions it is least suited. Hence local modifications are a genuine need. (Comaromi and Satija,1985)
5.5.1 Authorised adaptations
Yet a distinction should be made between adaptations recognized by the editors of a scheme, as reasonable adjustments and those modifications which are unauthorized. Those who make their own adjustments should not blame the classification for unhappy results. Thus most librarians are advised to make only those modifications which are suggested in the introduction to the scheme as possibilities. Other adaptions are likely to prove misleading and, if the classification is widely used, much of the commendable uniformity of practice between libraries will be lost as a result of these in-house alterations. We should never make wholesale self-revision or “adaptation” of classification schemes. Too many libraries have faced or are facing expensive reclassification because of past tinkering. Once tampering with numbers begins, the movement accelerates and the library finds itself committed to moving farther and farther away from the source. To be too much out of step could be very costly in the long term.
The modifications which are usually made involve the bringing together of such subjects as Language and Literature in DDC and placing together, in the same system, of the History and Geography of the same country. There are various ways of achieving the latter; they mostly result in an arrangement such as
954.025 History of Mogul India
T54.025 Travels in Mogul India
Here the divisions 9l4-9l9 have been abandoned and travel books go into the History section, being distinguished from history books by the replacement of the digit 9 by the letter T. It is also customary to remove current fiction from the classified sequence, whatever the scheme used, and to shelve modern fiction in an alphabetical arrangement by author. Thus adaptations results in which librarians describe as broken order. In India instead of assigning lengthy and huddled up class numbers to Indian literature in English the libraries prefer to modify as follow to bring British and Indian fiction together:
I821 Indian English Poetry
I823 Indian English Fiction
and so on. Further chronological details are spun based on the literary warrant and history of the Indian English literature. In addition there are many official but half-hearted permissions to provide short notation for and precedence to local subjects. For example, for Hindi literature a library may use 8H0 instead of 891.43 and similarly 8H1 for Hindi poetry instead of 891.431, and so on.
5.6 Be cautious
Occasionally indigenous adaptations of a more ingenious kind are made. The danger always lies in the fact that being out of step may prevent application of a sound new edition or participation in centralized classification and copy cataloguing service and thus prove costly ultimately in many ways. By and large, we must incline to the view that if a system is, like DDC, widely used and acknowledged, it is best used as it stands for the arrangement of general material; adaptations should not go beyond those officially permitted by the editors. In short, adaptation is to be shunned unless the reasons for the modifications are very powerful indeed as in Indian conditions. The only reasonable exception to this advice is the local collection or other special material in the general library. It is true that university libraries in India do often prefer an adapted form of DDC .
6. Shelf arrangement
At this point, it is useful to understand the term broken order which indicates some disturbance of the strict classified sequence; thus if the library uses DDC and the large classes Language and Literature are brought together for convenience, broken order is employed. This is the obvious example. One can find many more. Broken order, then, occurs when changes in sequence are made to the scheme in use. It also arises when temporary displays are created and material is drawn for these from many parts of the classification scheme. The whole object of broken order is to arrange the books more effectively and to promote their use; it should be applied cautiously. One occasionally sees many instances of so many unjustified ‘breaks’ in the classified sequence that ‘shattered order’ is the phrase coined by Arthur Maltby.
6.1 Parallel sequence : libraries within a library
In the art of library classification the first division of books does not take into consideration the subject matter. Every big library is a cluster of parallel libraries, i.e., libraries within a library. Parallel libraries are called sections. The first consideration is the section to which a book should go. We first determine whether the book under classification is a rare book, manuscript, thesis, textbook, reference book or any special collection item. These sections may be dictated by the utilitarian purpose such as reference or a textbook or for the convenience of managing them such as abnormal sized book, rarebooks and so on. Thus in a library there are many mini libraries within a given library. The normal and over-size sequence, do not make a broken order, but rather a parallel sequence. Likewise, we see parallel arrangements in the different departments of a library with their various sequences. It is best, within each department, to shelve over-size volumes in an entirely separate sequence, although some libraries like to reserve the bottom shelf in each bookcase for such ‘parallel’ material. However, the main point to be stressed is that the existence of many separate sequences in a classified library is a matter of convenience. It is termed as parallel sequence.
7. Reclassifying a library
Perhaps an even greater issue than that of adaptation is the possibility of re-classification. If a library is arranged according to a system which is rapidly becoming dated and no official revision is in the offing but a better method is readily available, should we shift over? This question does not admit of a ready answer. A library classification, once rooted, is harder to drive out. The answer lies somewhere between the extreme views. A library should always be prepared to change the classification system and should face the challenge of employing the best methods available, disregarding temporary inconvenience. Some feel that re-classification of an established library can never be economically justified, or cannot even be contemplated by a busy librarian. Indeed, librarians, rightly or wrongly, dread re-classification.
7.1 Know the task ahead
A librarian faced with the possibility of accepting a new system must carefully consider its long-term advantages with regard to the scholarly and satisfactory arrangement of material on the shelves and of entries in catalogues. In some cases, impending automation or shifting to a new building may provide the needed spur. We must also estimate the cost of change in terms of time, labour, the problem of altering many records, and the task of maintaining the service to users while the re-classification process is being carried out. The entire re-classification of a medium-sized or large library usually is uneconomical. In such an instance, the work involved in changing the scheme can be justified only if the subsequent advantages are very clear and truly great. It must be ensured that reclassification will yield durable advantages in the long term. In India, some libraries have changed from CC to DDC in recent years In the U S A, several libraries had switched to LC from the DDC in the 1960s. Librarians everywhere face this kind of problem and are quite reluctant to embark upon such a programme of work because of the number of volumes which have to be re-examined and reallocated by the classifiers. No established general scheme has yet a clear-cut advantage over the well-entrenched DDC for public libraries and indeed for many academic libraries.
8. Implementing a new edition
Naturally, some re-classification is taking place continually in many libraries. As and when a new edition of scheme is released, it invariably re-locates a few topics. It is well worthwhile to re-classify any portion of the stock which is still in use and which has a location that seriously conflicts with the new recommended placing.
8.1 Osmosis method
Once it is decided to reclassify the library by a new system the problem of converting thousands of classified volumes to the new scheme is the major difficulty . The answer lies in the osmosis method. It consists in adopting a fresh scheme for new accessions and regularly-used older material only, while adhering to the older system for the arrangement of the material not in use or demand. Reclassification is thus achieved without involving so much reorganization. It was suggested by Ranganathan as the osmosis method of re-classification. It has been adopted in some libraries. It results in an arrangement where there are two parallel sequences for a time representing different classifications. Gradually, however, the older system will be driven out by the preferred classification. Eventually books no more in use will retain old numbers. This method is surely the easy way of injecting a new method of arrangement into an already classified service library. It is not ideal, but it does make the work look easy. On the other hand, many librarians will be very reluctant to re-classify even if this method is employed. There are obvious disadvantages in employing two different schemes side by side for a number of years, and these cannot be taken lightly. Dr. D.J. Campbell has suggested that the osmosis method is unsuitable for special libraries and can best be practiced in collections which retain much obsolescent material(Maltby,1975,p271).
8.2 Another method of reclassification
How could reclassification operation be accomplished with the least possible disruption of its service? One may start with the sections most in use or the sections most in need of re-classification, for instance. As for procedure, this may well depend on the library and the two systems concerned. Make a plan to be followed: indicate how the task could be initiated . First of all, a space must be cleared to house some re-classified volumes in their new arrangement. Next, the classifiers must tackle the older system class by class, transferring material from each class in turn to the appropriate part of the new arrangement. The latter will grow slowly in the space provided and fresh space will soon become available as large gaps arise in the older sequence. As material is transferred, the appropriate records in the catalogue must be altered and the book stock in the older arrangement must be gradually reduced, so that space is available where it is most urgently needed. Eventually, all the stock, or all that the librarian decides to re-classify, will get removed to the new sequence which will soon grow rapidly. This long lingering game will certainly involve a great deal of effort. At all times books must be available to the reader. Thus all staff must be kept informed of the state of the huge task and must know which class has been removed from its old sequence for re-classification at any particular time in the operation; they must know also which subjects have already been re-classified. The library should certainly display a notice informing readers of what is happening and advise them to seek help if they cannot find any item required by them in that transitional period.
8.3 The cost of reclassification
The actual financial cost of the operation is also important. Regretfully we do not have any reliable estimates of either the cost of classification itself or the expenditure involved in re-classifying a substantial collection. The cost of in-house technical processing has always been a matter of concern, and there are few libraries now that undertake all of their cataloguing in-house in advance countries. Various other approaches include downloading of records, copy cataloguing and outsourcing of the entire job, the last option being common in the case of retrospective conversion of catalogues. Classification presents some different problems, and may be considered independently of cataloguing as a whole.It is considered that classification is intellectually a more rigorous task than most cataloguing, and in many libraries the classification and indexing is carried out by senior staff.This also adds to the cost. Ranganathan reports that in early 1960s, it cost only $1 to reclassify five books. This estimate is however too old to be of any clue now. Gopinath in 1962 worked out in a case study, cost of reclassification as 1 Rupee per book, and whereas cost of reclassifying bound volumes of periodicals was 0.35 Rupees per volume only. In the same paper he claims that by employing the method of osmosis the cost of “Reclassifying any library of whatever size is found to be 10,000 rupees and the additional staff needed is 2 professionals and 4 semiprofessionals for a period of 8 months”.
9. Summary
Only a few librarians will have the coveted opportunity to choose a classification system for their library. Most of us have to carry on with the system already in use, howsoever old and weak. Chance to reclassify a library is still rare. Nevertheless, if called upon to make a choice of a classification system for any reason then a librarian is burdened with a great personal responsibility on the shoulders. Responsibility is moral and personal in the sense that a wrong decision would put the library in a perpetual trouble. Choice needs vision and experience as on the right choice depends the quality and efficiency of library services– indeed, classification is the foundation of library services. The obvious factors to be considered are: major subjects of a collection, its form and strength, level of users, and types of services provided by the library. Regarding the inherent qualities of a classification, it should be technically sound, complete, current in terminology and knowledge structure, its notation should not be too complex, but expandable; its index should be simple, comprehensive and relative. Choose a classification which is regularly revised but not too frequently. It should be popular in the region or across the sector, for the sake of uniformity and collective solutions to common problems, and should be available from centralised services such as Library of Congress cataloguing services, OCLC, WorldCat, and MARC records. These days web based classifications have many additional features over the print versions. The other questions are of implementing the chosen system, shelf arrangement and reclassification. Ranganathan is of the view that we should always go in for full and minute classification. Broadly classified books prove harmful to the library in the long run, and retro-conversion to the full class numbers is cumbersome and costly. There are general and special classification systems. If the library is strictly specialised to some narrow subject area then some standard specialised systems such as London Education Classification or Moy’s Law Classification may be used, if available. In a big general library, having some specialised collection, it is better to use the same classification for all the documents. Ranganathan claims his Colon Classification is versatile like the trunk of an elephant which can pick up a small twig or a big log of wood with equal ease. Many general classifications imported from abroad have to be adapted of necessity in a different culture. In the DDC in-house extensions are made for Indian history, philosophy, literature and other Indology subjects. Some resort to broken order of the standard sequence to bring together related subjects. Adaptations, if inevitable, should be kept to the minimum, otherwise library will be moving away and away from standardisation and may not be able to avail of the copy cataloguing services. Rarely a library may need reclassifications which is dreaded by the librarians rightly or wrongly. Some reclassification is a routine matter as the new editions of the classification keep coming which invariably relocate some old subjects. But reclassification of the whole library by a supposedly better system should be very deliberated project. Ranganathan advices reclassification when the old system is no more useful and the proposed new system has clear advantages. For reclassification Ranganathan recommends his method of osmosis.
10. Glossary Adapting a System
Making changes in a standard classification system here and there to suit local conditions. It may also involve extension of some classes to classify local subjects for which there is no detailed provision in the system used by the library.
Broad Classification
A classification whose subdivisions are not detailed and therefore only makes broader grouping of documents on the shelves. It also means classifying books broadly without making use of detailed subdivisions of the system employed.
Broken Order
Localised arrangement of documents on the shelves in which related subjects are brought together irrespective of their place in the classification scheme. For example, most of the DDC classified libraries place 400 languages alongside 800 literature thus breaking the sequence.
Classifier
An individual who applies a classification system to the library documents in accordance with the policy of the library. A classifier is an operator of the system as distinguished from the classificationist who is a designer of the system.
Copy Cataloguing
The act of using or adapting the cataloguing record prepared by some outside centralized or commercial agency. Examples are downloading data from MARC records on the web or using CIP record given in the document.
Depth Classification
A fully detailed or minute classification which aspires to translate the specific subjects of documents into artificial notation of the system. Its objective, as contrasted from a broader classification, is to individualise each and every document on the shelves. In other words, it is a classification which is capable of providing class numbers co-extensive with the subject of the document.
General Classification
Library classification for all subjects and all forms of documents such as the CC or DDC.
Online Classification
Library classification system prepared as an electronic database and available on the web. Usually electronic systems such as WebDewey have many additional features over and above their print versions. On an electronic database many products and services can be based.
Osmosis Method
An administrative or procedural method, suggested by Ranganathan, for reclassifying a library without disrupting its services. By this method, only those documents which are in circulation are given new classification numbers. Documents which are no more in current use never get reclassified and may be sent to a depository. Thus this method reduces cost of reclassification and identifies documents which are obsolete or no more in active use. Its disadvantages is that this method is slow and burdens the library in managing two parallel collections having new and old class numbers.
Outsourcing Technical Services
Getting the technical work of processing documents done by an outside agency on contract basis.
Parallel Sequence
There are libraries within a library each classified by the same system which results in parallel sequence of documents brought together in separate sections by some similarity of format or purpose of service.
Reclassification
It is the process of replacing class numbers of the whole collection by a newly selected classification system, or modifying class number of a few books according to a new edition of the system already in vogue in the library.
Shattered Order
For too many breakages in the standard order to bring together related subjects the term coined by Arthur Maltby is shattered order.
Special classification
A depth classification for a narrow specialized area of knowledge say, medicine, law, social sciences, etc. It also refers to a classification for specific form of documents such as government publications, fictions or maps.
11. References and further Readings
- Broughton, Vanda.2004. Essential Classification. London: Facet Publishing, pp.284-293
- Chan, Lois Mai .2007. Cataloguing and Classification: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 480-486
- Foskett, A.C.1996. The Subject Approach to Information, 5th ed. London: LA Publishing, pp.210-211.
- Gedam, Pranali B and Paradkar, A. 2013. “A Study of Web-based Library Classification Schemes” Int. Jl. Of Lib. & Info. Science 5(10) Nov: 386-393. DOI 10.5897/IJLIS2013.0336
- Gopinath, M.A. 1962. “Reclassification of a Library Collection: A Case Study in Cost Accounting” Annals Lib. Sci. 9(3): 108-114.
- Harris, Christopher. 2013. “Library Classification 2020”. Knowledge Quest 42(2) Nov.14-19.
- Hunter, Eric J.2009.Classifcation Made Simple, 3rd ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 25-39.
- Krishan Kumar. 2004. Theory of Classification. New Delhi: Vikas, pp.368-373.
- Maltby, Arthur. 1975. Sayers Manual of Classification for Librarians, 5th ed. London: Andre Deutsch, pp.259-272.
- Marcella, Rita and Newton, Robert.1994. A New Manual of Classification. London:Gower,pp.184-186
- Mills, J. 1962. A Modern Outline of Library Classification. Bombay: Asia, pp. 54-64.
- Palmer, B. I.1962. Itself an Education: Six Lectures on Classification. London: The Library Association (now CILIP), pp.25-35
- Philips, H.W.1961. A Primer of Book Classification, 5th ed. London: AAL, pp.35-57
- Ranganathan,
- S.R. 1967. Prolegomena to Library Classification,3rd ed. Bombay:Asia,pp. 36-139.
- Ranganathan, S.R. 1967. A Descriptive Account of Colon Classification. Bombay:Asia,pp.257-263.
- Rowley, Jennifer and Hartley, Richard.2008. Organizing Knowledge, 4th ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp.219-222.
- Sahadath, Catelynne. 2013. Classifying the Margins: Using Alternative Classification
- Schemes to Empower Diverse and Marginal Users”. Feliciter, 59(3) June: 15-17.
- Satija, M.P. 2000. Classification: An Essay in Terminology. Knowledge Org. 27(4): 221-229.
- Satija, M.P. 2004. A Dictionary of Knowledge Organization. Amritsar : Guru Nanak Dev University, 248 p.
- Slavic Aida. 2008. “Faceted Classification: Management and Use”. Axiomathes. 18(2),June. DOI: 10.1007/s10516-007-9030-z
- Module LIS/KOP – C/15: Choice of a classification scheme: General versus special schemes
- Do you know
- Online Classification systems have many additional valuable features not possible in print format.
- S.R. Ranganathan was of the view that a detailed general classification is more convenient and useful than a narrow special classification.
- In general libraries the matter of choice of classification ultimately settles, as if by default, on a popular system such as the DDC.
- Points to remember
- Choice of classification should depend on the kind of the material and level of library users.
- A system used in CIP data or MARC 21 records should be given weightage in choice.
- There are few sources of copy cataloguing for Indian publications.
- Is osmosis method of reclassification really workable in practice?
- When a powerful military always replaces the costly war machinery with the new one then why are we afraid of classifying our collection with a better system?