[DCRM-L] Non-LC classification

[Gillis, Jane]

David and all who have written,

As Stephen Young has pointed out, and you know from working there, Beinecke Library does not use LC classification, except for the reference collections.  Before 1970, almost everything at Yale was classed in the "old Yale" classification scheme, created before the LC classification scheme.  There are millions of books throughout Yale libraries (including Beinecke) using this old classification.  When the other Yale libraries started using LC, Beinecke decided to  go with our year/number scheme for the general collection and for folios (e.g., 2010 1, 2010 2; 2010 S1 for serials; there are also quarto, folio and broadside schemes).  Beinecke also uses "Name Collections" call numbers (e.g., Shirley 1, etc.; Eisenman 1, etc.; with "S" numbers for serials).  We also still use the "Z" part of the old Yale classification (e.g., Za for Yale Collection of American Literature; Zc for Western Americana), but, much, much easier to apply than LC.

Pros  for not classing in LC:
--Saves a lot of time in cataloging-if you don't have a backlog, this would not apply, but if you do and don't have unlimited  funds, think "The perfect is the enemy of the good."  Is it better to catalog 15-20% more of the backlog with no LC classification?
--Saves space.  For monographs, you don't have to leave any space on the shelf; for serials, a little space is left for additions
--An LC class number would sometimes be misleading-we have items because of provenance or because of 1 article.  I just had 3 issues of a newsletter from a Toronto committee on liberty and justice.  It was part of our Western Americana collection because the issues dealt with the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.  Would you have to come up with 2 LC call numbers?  For us, the pipeline is the important part, not because it is gas or energy but because it is in  western Canada.  We get to this with extra subject headings.-I think this sort of thing happens much more frequently in special collections than in general stacks

Cons for not classing in LC:
--Can't  do a search using LC classification

We keep track of our call numbers with suppressed Voyager records.

Jane

Jane Gillis
Rare Book Cataloger
Yale University Library
jane.gillis at yale.edu
phone: 203-432-2633
fax: 203-432-4047



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Faulds, David
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:58 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Non-LC classification

Dear list,

I'm wondering what advice other list members might have about moving away from an LC classification system to some form of alphanumeric system. The pros seem to outweigh the cons with faster cataloging, more efficient shelving and more accurate reshelving verses the loss of browsing.

So, what are the list's thoughts on making this change? Has anyone considered it and decided against it? All comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,
David.

David Faulds, Rare Book Librarian
Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library
Emory University
540 Asbury Circle
Atlanta, GA  30322-2870
http://marbl.library.emory.edu<http://marbl.library.emory.edu/>

dfaulds at emory.edu<mailto:naomi.nelson at emory.edu>
404-712-2612
404-727-0360 (fax)


________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100121/bfb513b4/attachment.htm