LSS are considering moving away from unique call numbers and accepting the LC or Dewey classification that comes with the record without additional editing. An increasing proportion of our collection is electronic or held in storage so the idea of browsing the collection by call number no longer gives a true picture of what we actually hold. UC has had a practice of changing the classification to ensure like material is shelved together, particularly in areas like literature. This would no longer happen. Some basic quality control would continue to ensure classifications met an acceptable standard, for example classifications obviously wrong such as Chemistry classified in Computer Science would be corrected. There would inevitably be duplicate numbers and we may get things like different editions in different places. However accepting the classification provided would speed up processing times and would allow us to move to shelf ready processing. It would also allow LSS to devote more time to the management of electronic resources, which is where over 80% of our collections budget is now going. While this decision is likely to go ahead, I am interested in peoples comments for and against this practice as there may be implications we have not thought about. Cheers, Anne
Would we continue using Moys classification for law material or revert to Library of Congress K classifications?
Alison
On the whole this approach would be ok given the move to increased electronic and shelf ready books. However we need to think carefully about the implications for some areas of the library. What about second copies bought at different times (they may be apart on the shelves) and later editions could be shelved several books away from earlier editions. Literature is a concern since LC uses different cutters meaning that books by an existing author would be separated from later works. e.g for Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall LC uses PR6063.A438 and whereas we use PR 6063 .A41 .W8 2009.
The question is how much does this matter? Janette
We have in the past found students get confused when two unrelated books have the same call number – they go to find the call number (assuming it’s unique), grab it off the shelf, and wonder later why it’s not the one they were looking for.
This may be a minor confusion compared to the benefits but is probably worth being aware of going into it.
Deborah
In MB library we often "browse the shelves" when retrieving requested books for customers, to find other suitable books on the same topic. While this can be done on the catalogue, it is often faster doing it at the shelves. If call numbers were less specific, this would affect that practice.
MB collection will always remain more print-based than other branches.
Moys will remain. Second copies should remain in the same place, but it is an issue with pre-processing, so it will need to be thought about. Cheers, Anne
One thing to be aware of is that since LC uses the LC cutter table whereas UC uses the Cutter-Sanborn table, such a change would result in a mixture of alphabetical sequences between older and newer print materials at every classification number.
For example,
Scott, A = .S425 in C-S
Scott, A = .S35 in LC (roughly*)
.S35 = Schmidt in C-S
* LC cutter table is approximate, and adjusted according to LC’s shelflist, but LC used this cutter for example in Bib#: 902396.
The effect of having two different cutter number systems will be particularly disruptive in any of the literature sequences eg PR, PS, PQ because works by the same author will no longer be in quite the same place. Over time this will make constructive browsing difficult as the inherent logic of the shelf arangement will be lost.
Bronwyn
Browsing around a classification range never did give a "true picture of what we actually hold". It was just one way of finding material that suited – and will continue to suit – the needs of a great many students, particularly in the arts and humanities. This new development in the cause of speeding up processing times will contribute to intensifying our information overload culture and undermining quality control, except in the most basic sense. Since this is going to happen, we will get used to it.
For New Zealand, Australian and Canadian literature UC uses quite different ranges of numbers from LC.
NZ example, Denis Glover’s "A woman problem & other prose" (Bib #: 504605)
UC= PR 9582 .F164 w
LC= PR6011.A39 W6 1969
Australian example, critical work of Henry Lawson called "City bushman" (Bib #: 1104281)
UC= PR 9476 .L425 .L477 2004
LC= PR9619.2.L3 Z73 2004
Canadian example, Michael Ondaatje (eg Bib #: 367646)
UC= PR 9299 .O58
LC= PR9199.3.O5
If it is going to create havoc for whole sections of literature, etc., as pointed out above, then clearly safeguards need to be put in place to maintain the "inherent shelf arrangement logic", as Bronwyn says. Otherwise it will create too much confusion and undermine library credibility. As Ranganathan observed, part of the excellence of library service is its ability to meet the needs of the library user efficiently. While speeding up our processing appears to be more efficient on the surface, it is ultimately less efficient if it results in justifiable user confusion.
I need to know more about what this actually means in fine detail. For many years almost all Maori material was routinely classified at DU 412 making a nonsense of a subject based classification system and reinforcing the preceptions by Maori that libraries were a major contributor to the system that marginalised them in their own country. The National Library has spent years trying to rectify this cultural discrimination.
There are currently significant issues associated with Pacific material that are very similar to the issues we used to have with Maori material and which have quite major implications for our relationships with students. For example uses of medicinal plants in Pacific island countries are currently classified at GR (folklore) which can be perceived by a Pacific Island student as pretty insulting. Any item produced in a Pacific language is classified at PL (languages)instead of the actual subject of the book, be it religion, government etc. I was looking forward to the possibility of more specific subject classification for our own unique regional needs.
The call number is essentially a way of finding an item on a shelf. In a print open access environment it also allows for browsing in a subject area. However 35% of our new monographs are now purchased as ebooks that are not classified and the figure will grow, we will also put increasing amounts of our collection into storage, particularly in the Central Library, and there are also many packages of full text resources available online. Browsing in our print collection will miss over 85% of our purchased collection and a lot more resources that are available freely on the web.
In practice non unique call numbers will mean that we accept the call number that comes with the MARC record without change, unless there is something significantly wrong with it. Many university libraries have done this for years. Given that print is now less than 15% of the budget LSS need to refocus our energies into electronic access and make some of our unique resources more available. Most New Zealand and Pacific material in the short term will still need to be classified. Cheers, Anne
I have also just been told we still have ringed collections for Chinese and Japanese that would be affected by this change eg PL1000. Cheers, Anne