Print

Print


It would also be worth mentioning, while there is a large audience, that
if anyone has any problem areas with Dewey that they want pursuing, that
they should forward them to Caroline Kent ([log in to unmask]) who is
the CILIPDDC rep on EPC (and also the Chair) of EPC. Unfortunately, she
is on leave all this week, so can't join in our discussions. She is
planning to get some new recruits for the Committee, and to put a call
out in the CILIP gazette and/or Catalogue & index, so watch out for
that.

 

And on re-reading my entry below, I should have put "normally countries
propose changes" rather than "normally countries instigate". It's quite
difficult trying to put things accurately on the hoof! 

 

Gill

 

________________________________

From: Cooper, Gill 
Sent: 27 September 2011 12:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Kent, Caroline
Subject: RE: [CIG-E-FORUM] Welcome to CIG e-forum Day 2

 

Yes, good question. Literary warrant would be for new topics, not
previously provided for, such as hand-held computers. For changes to
place names/regimes, such as you mention below, this would have to be
queried with EPC and I could ask Caroline Kent to follow this up for
you. I'm not sure what the timescale would be for this, and what the
editorial rules would be, but I would imagine, that unless there were
some controversy, that it might happen fairly quickly.

 

Normally countries instigate any proposed changes they want to their own
place names, particularly if they are Dewey users, or they become aware
of out-of-date information in classification schemes, and there have
been a number of expansions recently due to the work of the translation
teams (e.g. for the German and Swiss editions).

 

I'll forward your question to Caroline,

 

Gill

 

________________________________

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jardine, Heather
Sent: 27 September 2011 12:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Welcome to CIG e-forum Day 2

 

I am interested in the mention of "literary warrant" - does this apply
to all sorts of changes or are changes of "fact" fast-tracked? I'm
thinking of something like South Sudan - there won't have been much
published yet (although we do have something and this came up as a query
to me) but it is politically incorrect (literally) to carry on using the
number for Sudan. The same applies to changes of regime, of course.  How
quickly can numbers reflecting these kinds of changes be made available
to us?

 

________________________________

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Cooper, Gill
Sent: 27 September 2011 11:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Welcome to CIG e-forum Day 2

In response to Jill's request for info about the editorial process:

 

Basically, what the CILIPDDC Committee does is to try to represent the
UK view on schedule revisions, and any new editorial
policies/developments. It has representatives from the various different
library sectors, and the views are fed to the Editorial Policy Committee
at OCLC by Caroline Kent. 

 

The Editorial Policy Committee serves as an advisory body to the DDC,
with expert editors on different areas, who put forward proposals for
revisions, taking into account "literary warrant" - i.e there has to be
sufficient number of items published on the new topic to justify it.
There are also other National Committees that also feed into the
process, including ones from the US, Australia, Canada and also now
Europe (EDUG - the European Dewey Users' Group).

 

We try to have representatives on the CILIPDDC Committee covering
different subject areas (as well as different types of library) who look
over the papers and put forward comments. For computing we are lucky to
have Gordon Dunsire who is an expert in that area,

 

Gill

 

________________________________

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Hazard, Jill
Sent: 27 September 2011 10:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Welcome to CIG e-forum Day 2

 

Hi,

 

I know that here at Sheffield Hallam (where I work with Helen Garner) we
are looking into and probably will move from DDC22 to DDC23. However
this will be the first time where I will be involved in a
reclassification project as someone doing the reclassification. In my
previous role elsewhere I would be one of the many hunting out books and
changing them on the system and on the spine labels. As the
classification side of reclassification is quite new to me, I for one
would find more information about the editorial process used useful.
Particularly in understanding how you/DDC team deal with fast changing
and growing areas such as computing.

 

Jill

 

Jill Hazard |Service Support Adviser - Cataloguing | Learning and
Information Services | Sheffield Hallam University 

Phone : (0114 225) 2113 | e-mail: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Cooper, Gill
Sent: 27 September 2011 09:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Welcome to CIG e-forum Day 2

 

Good morning everyone, and welcome to Day 2 of the CIG e-forum on
Reclassification. We are looking forward to lots of discussion again
today, so please do join in!

There was some interesting debate yesterday and Debbie has posted a very
useful summary of the discussions we had yesterday, so if want to
refresh your memory, or you're joining us for Day 2, then that would be
a good starting point.

 

My name is Gill, and I'm a member of the Digital Processing Team at the
British Library, and also the CILIPDDC Minutes Secretary.  I was really
interested in the discussions yesterday because reclassification
surfaces as a topic every now and again in the CILIPDDC meetings and
it's nice to get views at a practical level. 

 

When reviewing papers for schedule revision, we often weigh up the
impact of different options, and there are often opposing views amongst
the members on the extent to which libraries still reclassify, so it is
good to get information on this. The discussion then inevitably strays
also onto future developments which may lessen the need to reclassify in
the longer term, which is a topic we can move on to in the afternoon
session.  

 

Perhaps, to begin, though, we could pick up on whether those libraries
using DDC22 or earlier are planning on reclassifying to DDC23? That
topic cropped up a bit yesterday, but I think more discussion on this
would be useful.

 

I can then outline the nature of the changes in a later post, and the
context of the changes in relation to those for edition 22 and 21. 

 

Also, I can outline what the Committee does in more detail, if anyone
would like more information? My colleague Caroline Kent would have
covered this in her talk at the reclassification event last week, but
you won't all have attended that,

 

Gill

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
delete this e-mail. Opinions, advice or facts included in this message
are given without any warranties or intention to enter into a
contractual relationship with the City of London unless specifically
indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City
of London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is purely
personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London. All e-mail
through the City of London's gateway is potentially the subject of
monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is excluded. Please
note that in so far as the City of London falls within the scope of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose this e-mail. Website:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk