[DCRB-L] Classification numbers

[Laurence Creider]

I missed the initial post on this, but while Deborah and Jane make some
good points, I think that an argument can be made for classifying such
materials using a subject classification.  It all depends on the nature of
the rare materials collection and its relationship to other libraries.  

For example, if the materials in the rare collection are chiefly early
imprints or examples of fine printing, the use of subject classification
is less helpful than if the materials consist of focused collections on,
say the history of science or liturgical history.  Scientific and "social
science" materials published before the latter part of the 18th century
even in the early 19th century are often so general that classification is
virtually useless.  You end up with 150 books on Natural History--Early
works to 1800, or the early 18th century economic pamphlets that discuss
how to solve English economic problems concerning the national debt,
trade, Irish imports, etc., all within 30 pages.

Similarly, if you have a large number of different classifications in use
in your collections and no intention of ever reclassifying to one system,
you might as well choose something that will be as of little cost to your
staff as possible.  Your staff and patrons will have to develop other ways
to retrieve materials on similar subjects.

On the other hand, if you have extensive collections in history that are
are dovetail nicely with the holdings in the general collection, use of a
subject classification can help your researchers (including students) and
significantly increase the use of your holdings as people learn that a
call number browse is worth doing.  Likewise, if you have multiple
departmental libraries, as we did at Penn, the virtual shelf list can be
quite useful.  It was hard to figure out whether a book would be in the
main library, in Special Collections, in the Art Library or the Museum
library.  And subject headings don't always match.

Lastly, there is something intellectually satisfying and challenging about
finding everything from 16th century editions of Bede to Internet
resources in a call number search of BR749.

What you have to decide is whether the cost/benefit ratio for staff and
patrons makes such extra work worthwhile.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> DDC, LC, and other classification systems that I know of are all
> subject classifications, specifically designed to facilitate reader
> browsing. When stacks are closed and browsing is not permitted, the
> primary goal of subject classification is not present. And since
> subject classification does require time on the cataloger's part to
> apply, and has shelving disadvantages as well, many rare book
> repositories (such as the Folger) keep most of their rare books in
> accession number order.
> 
> There is an advantage to subject classification for closed stacks,
> which is the browsing possible by shelfmark in online library systems.
> It's a matter of effort vs. benefit. In a closed stack, the benefits
> don't come close to justifying the efforts.
> 
> ___________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E.
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> 202.675-0369 (p)
> 202.675-0328 (f)
> djleslie at folger.edu
> www.folger.edu
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jones barbara [mailto:jones5 at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
> Subject: [DCRB-L] Classification numbers
> 
> 
> Colleagues:  As a lapsed cataloger who has forgotten much of the
> theoretical underpinnings, I would very much appreciate your opinions,
> local practices, or references to articles on the following question:
> 
> Why do we assign classification numbers in books in a closed stack such as
> a rare book library?  Do your libraries assign them?  I am not referring
> to named collections here.
> 
> I would appreciate practical as well as theoretical reasons.
> 
> I miss the good times we had in New Haven.  Best wishes, Barbara Jones
> 
> 
>