Re: Dewey vs. LC (fwd)

[Barbara Jansen <bjansen@TENET.EDU>]

I posted this message to my friend who is a professor (specializing in
cataloging and classification) at the University of Texas at Austin. Here
is his response:
* Barbara A. Jansen          Live Oak Elementary     *
* Librarian                  8607 Anderson Mill Road *
* Round Rock I.S.D.          Austin, TX  78729-4706  *
* bjansen@tenet.edu          512/331-0996            *
-------------------
Barbara--For a media center collection, which I suppose this is, the only
advantage for using one system over another would be economic:
     1) Which system has more classification numbers available for the
kinds of items collected?  Well, LCC does on the face of things, but that
is a facetious argument for media centers.  They don't really collect the
kinds of items that LCC has so many more class numbers for.  So, the fact
that LCC has more class numbers supplied is a moot point.
     As to media, the strong suit of a media collection, my perception is
that the availability of class numbers in either system is about equal,
especially with respect to computer files.
     2)  Which system is more economical to buy?  DDC wins this one hands
down.  A media center has no need for the full DDC edition, so far as I
understand.  The abridged edition costs less than $100.  $100 will get
you about 3 to  4 LCC schedules of the more than 50 available.  Getting
the entire LCC set is very expensive.  Of course, a media center need not
get all the schedules--for ex., it can dispense with the law schedules
(or at best get KF for US law and K--Law, General), and it can dispense
with most of the foreign language lang. and lit. schedules  (in the P-PZ
classes).  And I suppose there are others too.  But, then one is running
along with only some of the scheme and the extraneous work that falls
into one of those schedules will just be on the outside.  Even so,
suppose one gets only 20 schedules.  At more than $20 each, we are still
talking $400 or so, and then there are the updates, and then there is the
"Subject Cataloging Manual:  Shelflisting"  and then there is the
"Subject Cataloging Manual:  Classification" each of which costs more
money.  DDC plainly wins this one hands down.

In terms of the actual arrangement of the schemes, there is no real
advantage.  They both have their pluses, they both have their minuses.
The LCC was developed for large collections of items and, thus, is
developed downwards hierarchically to very minute levels and also
coordinately (laterally) in terms of very fine distinctions.  The DDC full
edition actually competes well with the LCC at least in some areas.  But,
both systems are way overdeveloped for a media center which will never
become "big" in the sense that these systems are developed.

One way to answer the question of which one to use is as follows:  Would
you use the DDC full edition, if the LCC were not available?   If you
answer this yes (and some media centers do use the DDC full edition),
then you might possibly consider using the LCC.  If you would not (i.e.,
if what you need is an abridged edition of any large system), then you
should not touch the LCC with a stick.

Now, lastly, my personal opinion.  DDC wins it hands down.  It is made
for smaller collections.  It is senstive to the needs of schools
libraries, especially in the abridged edition.  More and more DDC numbers
get assigned to new works by LC's DDC division yearly.  Nearly any vendor
worth its salt uses the DDC in terms of media centers, public libraries,
etc.  Hey, what's the argument?  There is no argument for LCC for a media
center that can hold more than a thimble of water.

Finally, one needs to ask a question about one's own classification
interests.  If classification simply means getting a number on an item
and, ultimately, using that number for circulation purposes and a "mark
and park" record keeping function, then DDC is expensive enough for
that.  If, however, one is really "into" classification as an
intellectual thing, then one needs to get into a system that is
manageable--that is, in terms of all of the other duties that media
center directors and personnel are faced with.  Why, under those
circumstances, would one want a humongous system like LCC or DDC full
edition for adapting to a media center when a perfectly usable DDC
abridged edition is available?  Here again, DDC (abridged) wins hands
down.

Well, these are my opinions on the matter, at least.

Fran Miksa
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
The University of Texas at Austin