It is interesting--spent some time last night re-reading the Introductions to the 1st edition and the current 22nd edition of DDC.
In the Preface of the 1st edition Dewey wrote "The system was devised for cataloguing and indexing purposes, but it was found on trial to be equally valuable for numbering and arranging books and pamphlets on the shelves." (Dewey, 1876, p3) He also says "The impossibility of making a satisfactory classification of all knowledge as preserved in books, has been appreciated from the first, and nothing of the kind attempted" and that "Theoretically, the division of every subject into just nine heads is absurd." (p.4)
In the 22nd edition published in 2003 the DDC editors define classification and its purpose:
"2.1 Classification provides a system for organizing knowledge. Classification may be used to organize knowledge represented in any form, e.g., books, documents, electronic resources.
2.2 Notation is the system of symbols used to represent the classes in a classification system. In the Dewey Decimal Classification, the notation is expressed in Arabic numerals. The notation gives both the unique meaning of the class and its relation to other classes.The notation provides a universal language to identify the class and related classes, regardless of the fact that different words or languages may be used to describe the classes." (DDC22, vol.1, p
In reading through the entire Introduction there is not one mention of using the numbers for physical arrangement of the resources. The definition of Call number (Book number) is "a set of letters, numerals, or other symbols (in combination or alone) used by a library to identify a specific copy of a work. A call number may consist of the class number, book number, and other data such as date, volume number, copy number, and location symbol." (DDC22, vol. 1, p lxvi)
Logically and realistically, we know that the built numbers assigned to resources are used for physical arrangement library. But, it is important to note the absence of any requirement to do so. This is what some libraries have done when moving to other ways of arranging, but I would contend their reasons for doing so are largely based on this misperception of how DDC works as a classification system as well as the following of the "tradition" of using the numbers for arrangement (i.e., this is how its always been done, no questions asked). This would be a very interesting study --a small one for an article, perhaps, or more detailed study for a dissertation.
The book "Moving Beyond the Presentation Layer: content and context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System" published in 2006 by Haworth Press (also as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, volume 42, numbers 3/4), and edited by Joan S. Mitchell and Diane Vizine-Goetz, seeks to look beyond the "familiar linear notation sequence" and explore how it can be used in web environment. It's a great read--I highly recommend it, especially Karen Markey's article on use of classification in the online environment.
In looking through several textbooks on classifying with DDC, the distinction between the classification number and the addition of a book number (sometimes called the cutter number or a "unique identifier") is the only real mention of any use for physical arrangement on the shelf. Without that addition then arrangement is quite difficult. I would be curious to know if libraries that no longer use DDC for shelving had been using the whole "book number" or just the classification number. I've often observed class numbers being randomly "lopped off" to make a shorter notation to fit on the spine. On one cringe-worthy occasion I found a number that didn't even exist in the schedules--someone had taken the original number and rounded it up.
In the survey of catalogers in North Texas public libraries that I conducted in 2005-2006, I found that out of 104 respondents (representing a 60% response rate) only 33 (32%) used DDC, 22nd edition, either daily, weekly, or occasionally; an average of 17 (16.5%) used the older 21st or 20th editions daily, weekly, or occasionally. At the same time, 18 (17%) accessed DDC online through WebDewey. 61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't understood, at least in this neck of the woods, but I would venture to say that a national survey would produce similiar findings. (Miksa, S. “A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, vol. 49, no. 2, Spring 2008. )
**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 10:24:18 EST