What's the difference between DMS 839.31364 and 839.31367?
DiscussãoTalk about LibraryThing
Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1tmrps
Hi,
This I was categorising some Dutch books when I stumbled upon this. Basically, if you dive deep enough in the Dewey system, you reach the Dutch section. Under 20th century, you get three main categories: 1900 until 1945 (839.31362) // 1945 until 1999 (839.31364) // 1946 until 1999 (839.31367).
Is there anyone who has more knowledge than I have, who can explain why there are two categories for the latter part of the century? I myself have been using 839.31367, but most books seem to be filed under 839.31364. 64 would be a bit weird to use since 1945 overlaps both categories, but 67 is less used. Can these two be combined/merged into one category (and be named 1946-1999?)?
Kindest regards
Edit: uuuugh, the title. It was late at night okay, I know it’s MDS.
This I was categorising some Dutch books when I stumbled upon this. Basically, if you dive deep enough in the Dewey system, you reach the Dutch section. Under 20th century, you get three main categories: 1900 until 1945 (839.31362) // 1945 until 1999 (839.31364) // 1946 until 1999 (839.31367).
Is there anyone who has more knowledge than I have, who can explain why there are two categories for the latter part of the century? I myself have been using 839.31367, but most books seem to be filed under 839.31364. 64 would be a bit weird to use since 1945 overlaps both categories, but 67 is less used. Can these two be combined/merged into one category (and be named 1946-1999?)?
Kindest regards
Edit: uuuugh, the title. It was late at night okay, I know it’s MDS.
2HeathMochaFrost
>1 tmrps: I don't know if I can help, but I can try. Can I ask where you found the two different (but very similar!) date ranges? Do you have a link I can take a look at?
4MarthaJeanne
The Dewey system is constantly being adjusted to make it fit the needs of today's books. After all, when Dewey first created it, he didn't need numbers for electronics or video games - or 20th and twenty first century literature. I think these numbers came into LT from libraries using different versions of the system.
Use whichever you prefer. The chart has to explain both.
Use whichever you prefer. The chart has to explain both.
5tmrps
>4 MarthaJeanne: I can see where it’s coming from, but I was more like ‘you can see there are two very similar categories, why not combine in the first place?’.
6MarthaJeanne
Because people have both categories, and the chart has to explain what both numbers mean. It's not numbers that are LT internal. They are coming in with entries. At most one of the numbers could have a note added that it is recommended to use the other one.
7Seraphya
You can try writing to the OCLC which manages the numbering:
https://www.oclc.org/forms/dewey-editorial-volunteer.en.html
https://www.oclc.org/forms/dewey-editorial-volunteer.en.html
8MarthaJeanne
No, please don't. OCLC would just get mad at LT and say we are using their product illegally. Tim is trying to be very careful to stay just on the legal side of a very thin line. They also have no control over which libraries are still using older versions of their product.
9HeathMochaFrost
>3 tmrps: D'oh! I'd been searching the web for DEWEY numbers, not realizing that LT's Melvil system was documented down to that level of precision. So while it should have been obvious to me, I appreciate you pointing me directly to it! :-)
One thing I noticed as I clicked around the MDS numbers is that a lot of the time periods within literature have that "one year overlap," where the same year closes one period and begins the next one. Here's an example from English fiction under 823:
https://www.librarything.com/mds/823.91
The whole row of 823.0, from Early, through Elizabethan, Queen Anne, Victorian, and everything in between, there's a one-year overlap from one time period to the next. And the bottom row in this view, the 20th century, is split into two categories, but like the Dutch fiction, it overlaps on 1945. The categories that begin with 1946 are the exception rather than the rule.
As MarthaJeanne says in her post https://www.librarything.com/topic/334764#7589127 these COULD be coming from libraries who might tweak the classification numbers to fit their own needs; local libraries and librarians usually build and manage their collections (including how the materials are organized) to suit their communities.
I've also taken a look at a few LT member catalogs who have an unusual "outlier" MDS number, and the Dewey/Melvil number in their catalog is the green text that indicates LT is calculating/guessing what the number should be. The green text is often helpful, but it's sometimes incorrect. I'm not saying it is incorrect, because I don't know enough to tell--just that even educated guesses are still just guesses. :-)
It's also possible--not likely, but possible--that the 7 is a typo. When I was in library school some 25 years ago, I was browsing the university library's books on religions. I found a book with a class number that was sandwiched between two other sections. I don't remember exactly, but it might have been BK when it was supposed to be BV, something like that, and BK isn't used in LC Classification. Mistakes happen.
I'm sorry I don't have a clear-cut explanation; I wish I did.
One thing I noticed as I clicked around the MDS numbers is that a lot of the time periods within literature have that "one year overlap," where the same year closes one period and begins the next one. Here's an example from English fiction under 823:
https://www.librarything.com/mds/823.91
The whole row of 823.0, from Early, through Elizabethan, Queen Anne, Victorian, and everything in between, there's a one-year overlap from one time period to the next. And the bottom row in this view, the 20th century, is split into two categories, but like the Dutch fiction, it overlaps on 1945. The categories that begin with 1946 are the exception rather than the rule.
As MarthaJeanne says in her post https://www.librarything.com/topic/334764#7589127 these COULD be coming from libraries who might tweak the classification numbers to fit their own needs; local libraries and librarians usually build and manage their collections (including how the materials are organized) to suit their communities.
I've also taken a look at a few LT member catalogs who have an unusual "outlier" MDS number, and the Dewey/Melvil number in their catalog is the green text that indicates LT is calculating/guessing what the number should be. The green text is often helpful, but it's sometimes incorrect. I'm not saying it is incorrect, because I don't know enough to tell--just that even educated guesses are still just guesses. :-)
It's also possible--not likely, but possible--that the 7 is a typo. When I was in library school some 25 years ago, I was browsing the university library's books on religions. I found a book with a class number that was sandwiched between two other sections. I don't remember exactly, but it might have been BK when it was supposed to be BV, something like that, and BK isn't used in LC Classification. Mistakes happen.
I'm sorry I don't have a clear-cut explanation; I wish I did.
