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

 

 

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any proposed changes they want to their own place names, particularly if they are Dewey users, or they become aware of out-of-date information in classification schemes, and there have been a number of expansions recently due to the work of the translation teams (e.g. for the German and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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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