THE REVISION OF THE DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026084 |
| Pages | 35-36 |
| Published date | 01 February 1946 |
| Date | 01 February 1946 |
| Author | ESTHER P. POTTER |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
THE REVISION OF THE DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION
by ESTHER P. POTTER
Director,
Dewey
Decimal
Classification,
Library of
Congress
IN
1876 Melvil Dewey published the first edition of the Decimal Classifica
tion. Through the years the great advances in all fields of knowledge have
necessitated thirteen revisions. Work on the fifteenth or Standard Edition
is
now in progress. When it appears, probably late in 1947, it will be a com
plete revision and will restore Melvil Dewey's original conception of the
classification as one primarily concerned with the classification of books.
As the classification developed, it was inevitable that the demands of the
times and a too great volume of work to be done by a small staff should
produce in the last revision a most uneven performance. Many tables,
especially in the 6oo's, where such tremendous scientific advances have been
made, had never been expanded. Other tables, notably in the field of liberal
arts,
had been expanded to the proportions of a bibliographic classification.
The general opinion among librarians and of the Decimal Classification
Committee, the policy-making body which controls the DC, was that a
drastic revision was necessary in the next edition.
The first important decision regarding the Standard Edition was made by
the DC Committee in May
1941,
when they decided that the edition should
be designed especially for the use of the great body of users of the DC, which
according to statistics are, generally speaking, small, medium, and fairly large
general libraries.
Prior to actual work on the new edition, questionnaires were sent to
cataloguers and classifiers in varying types of libraries so that their replies
might serve as a pragmatic basis for revision. The following questions were
asked for each of the main tables:
1.
Which of the tables is over-expanded for use in your library?
2.
Which of the tables needs to be expanded to take care of rapidly
growing collections in your library?
3.
Which tables need definition or correlation with other parts of the
classification?
4.
Wherein is the terminology obsolete or inaccurate?
5.
What new subjects or developments within the scope of the tables
should be provided for?
Replies would indicate that the majority of classifiers considered the
following tables to be overdeveloped for their book collections:
020
069
130
150
Library economy
Museums
Abnormal and general psychology
To continue reading
Request your trial