Concerning Classification: American Alternative Classification Systems 1930 - Today

Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) have been widely used in American libraries for over 100 years. Since their adoption, librarians have been interrogating the structure of these classification schemas and finding that these systems will not equitably represent the resources in their collections. One solution to this problem is creating an alternative classification system that modifies the existing schema or creates a wholly new alternative. This presentation will explore two different types of alternative classification systems: those built for special libraries and those constructed to improve access to resources by and about historically marginalized groups. It will introduce alternative or modified classification schemes created from as early as the 1930s through the modern day. These systems make room for non-English, non-white, and non-Eurocentric modes of knowledge organization that can be more intuitive and beneficial to patrons. Exploring these systems allows librarians to trace gaps and marginalization that have persisted in systems like LCC and DDC and provides a foundation for finding solutions

Alternative Vocabularies: What to do when LCSH isn\u27t enough

Catalogers in the United States primarily use Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) to describe the resources in their libraries, but sometimes, there isn\u27t an LCSH term that is the right fit. Sometimes, terms are too broad or too narrow; occasionally, terms are simply outdated, and unfortunately, some are pejorative. When that happens, it\u27s time to introduce an alternative vocabulary into the cataloging workflow. This presentation will introduce four alternative subject heading vocabularies: Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms, Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus, Rare Books and Manuscripts Controlled Vocabulary, and Homosaurus. Each vocabulary will be presented with a broad overview of where it can be found, what it\u27s particularly good at describing, and examples of what it would look like in a bibliographic record. The presentation will close with a decision tree to help catalogers decide when it might be time to look outside LCSH to describe their resources. Presentation also available online via SCRLC Webinars

Classification from the margins : three alternative classification systems, 1930-1975

Library classification systems frequently fail librarians and patrons because they do not provide space for the depth and breadth of topics both about and created by people within marginalized communities. This presentation explores three classification systems, created in North America between 1930-1975, that were produced by people in and for the communities that they represent. In 1930, Dorothy Burnett Porter Wesley, a librarian who helped to build the collection at Howard University, also created a classification system to better represent the works by, about, and for Black people. During the same time period, Alfred Kaiming Chiu was creating the Harvard-Yenching Classification system at Harvard University because the Library of Congress classification system could not accommodate Chinese Language materials and non-European knowledge organization. In 1974, A. Brian Deer began his work in creating classification systems that not only improved the depth of the classification but also adjusted the framework of classification to better fit the way Indigenous knowledge is structured to be more intuitive for Indigenous patrons. These examples, some nearly 100 years old, emphasize the need to uplift and champion the voices of people within marginalized communities as we continue to do work toward reparative cataloging and classification

Best Practices for Queer Metadata

This document is the result of two years of work by a group of nearly one hundred knowledge organisers, cataloguers, librarians, archivists, scholars, and information professionals with a concerted interest in improving the metadata treatment of queer people, communities, and items in GLAMS (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums, and Special Collections) and other informational institutions. Their work has been supported by over 800 peer reviewers; combined, these groups make up the Queer Metadata Collective (QMDC). The QMDC builds upon earlier work done by the Trans Metadata Collective (TMDC), a similarly-organised group of metadata workers and information professionals with a concerted interest in improving the metadata representation of trans and gender-diverse people. The work of the TMDC culminated in Metadata Best Practices for Trans and Gender Diverse Resources, focusing on the description, cataloguing, and classification of information resources as well as the creation of metadata about trans and gender-diverse people, including authors, communities, and other creators. Following the publication of the Best Practices, several TMDC members founded and developed the QMDC over the summer of 2022. This document focuses on metadata by and about queer people, communities, and resources. While there is significant overlap between queer metadata and trans and gender diverse metadata, QMDC’s recommendations should not be seen as excluding or superseding TMDC’s, as trans and gender diverse people, communities, and resources have specific needs. For best practices and recommendations about trans and gender-diverse resources, please consult the TMDC document. If the TMDC and QMDC recommendations conflict (we are not aware of any instances in which they do), prefer the TMDC document for trans and gender diverse resources and the QMDC for other types of queer resources.UT Librarie

Call numbers, oh call numbers on ebooks, why have you forsaken us!

ILS vendor Knowledge bases (KB) are built in a black box. The quality of the metadata is not the concern of the ILS vendor which then leads to missing data, which impacts discoverability. Comparing records of two ILS vendors KBs has shown a disparity in how they manage metadata. We are evaluating multiple ebook publishers’ data in the KB based on the availability of call numbers and subject headings while looking at resource usage. Exploring ways to improve access by including call numbers and subject headings and discovering the larger problem