The Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems fall short when the items being cataloged are product binders, codes and standards, or pieces of granite. What methods do you use in your library to organize your shelves?
Elizabeth Frenchman: For product binders, database, samples and cutsheets, we use the CSI MasterFormat numbers. I don't shelve them by subdivision number but alphabetically within their division. The database (Outlook) allows searching by division number or product as well as rep name, and company.
Alexa Metrick: We use MasterFormat numbers for the product binders, as well. The books used to be organized with the Library of Congress Classification System, with a modification of the Zs for codes and standards. This organization did not work well for us. After deliberating for quite some time, we abandoned formal classification (since our collection of actual books is not overwhelmingly large) and grouped them in this way: Location, Architects/Firms, Architectural History, Architectural Theory, Design, Interiors, Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning, Building Type, PCF Projects, Codes & Standards, Construction (primarily handbooks,sub-divided by division number), Measurements, Engineering, Specifications, Cost Data, Technology, Parking, Stairs, Seismic, Sustainability, Construction Management, Construction Law, Drawings & Details, Art, Artists. Part of the logic behind this order was to situate the codes, standards, and handbooks closest to the door and therefore most accessible. So far it's working quite well.
Elizabeth Frenchman: Cataloging a lot of books in the same subject area under Dewey is a real problem. When I worked in a synagogue library, I was introduced to a classification system that was adapted from Dewey soley for Jewish books (the Jewish section in Dewey is "296"; something had to give). We don't yet have enough architecture monographs to have to worry about finding a certain book yet, but I have to start thinking about it and have done a little work mapping architecture subjects to be the equivalent broad class number as its Dewey counterpart. An example would be putting a theoretical book in the 100s... the "green" books in 500s... Our "actual book" categories are: (eye-level shelf) Architects and Studios (alphabetical order); second shelf: Reference, Sustainable Design, Typologies, New York City, Genres & Eras; third shelf: Planning/Urban Design, Other Design/Art/Photgraphy; fourth shelf: Criticism, Technology, Materials, Process/Competitions/Education (Schools).
Comments (2)
Elizabeth Weeks said
at 6:00 pm on Aug 14, 2008
Though Dewey definitely has limitations, I find the system useful for several reasons. The Dewey categories are meaningful because they correspond to those which easily come to mind when I think about the practice of architecture, such as, architectural history 720, building types 725, building materials 691, construction practices 692 etc. The fact that a Dewey number has already been assigned to many publications before going to print simplfies my life. I have developed a healthy regard for the art of the cataloguer. A simplified Dewey might be the ticket, but not to consider Dewey amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Kelly said
at 10:13 am on Sep 3, 2008
Hi all -- I'm a student working on a project for a firm that does not (nor will) have a librarian on hand to continue control and consistency with the cataloging system I develop. Are there any practical solutions to make a sustainable catalog? I think Dewey might be too technical to remain usable post-project, as is LC. I've got both a materials and print library, and after learning about the MasterFormat numbers, I think my challenge will be the print collection (~1700 books and serials). Any suggestions?
You don't have permission to comment on this page.