Update on Branch not using Dewey
The Maricopa County Library has chosen to organize its collection by BISAC instead of Dewey. "The result? Circulation is robust, patrons are happy, and though the library staff steeled themselves for "outrage," not a single customer has complained. As Maricopa County library director Harry Courtwright points out, if it doesn't work, they can always go back to Dewey--but they are optimistic enough, based on the initial response, that they are planning to use BISAC organization for a library they are opening in 2008." Read more.
posted by laura @ 1:22 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I wish Laura would stop posting these Dewey messages--I feel like I am spending half my time defending my profession! ;-)
I looked a little further into Karen Schneider’s post like I did the earlier post on June 4th. It isn't all of the Maricopa Library, just the Perry Branch as described in the earlier post. Please refer to my response to that post for additional rebuttal and background.
BISAC is a sufficient scheme for booksellers. It was developed in much the same way as other library subject schemes were developed...to provide for a need. We use Library of Congress Subject Headings, Library of Congress Subject headings for Children, Bilindex (LC subject headings in Spanish), and GSAFD (genre terms for fiction) in our catalog but there are dozens of other schemes out there used by other libraries for other situations. The Phoenix Public Library as described in the article has decided to enrich their catalog by adding BISAC headings in addition to the other schemes they use. The basic reason to add additional classification schemes is to provide additional access.
The problem I see right off is relying on a publisher to assign thier BISAC headings. I don’t have confidence that the publisher will be consistent or even accurate the way a librarian would.
One example record is for the title The healthy Jewish cookbook : 100 delicious recipes from around the world. Our record has the LC subject headings “Jewish cookery” and “low-fat diet—recipes” assigned. The BISAC headings I found on the flap where “COOKING / JEWISH”. This is not the proper BISAC heading however, which goes back to my lack of confidence in publishers. They didn’t even add the BISAC heading for it being a healthy cookbook. I used the BISAC scheme and assigned the headings “COOKING / Regional & Ethnic / Jewish & Kosher” and “COOKING / Health & Healing / Low Fat” to see what ideally a person would do with this scheme. Both schemes do a decent job of expressing what the title is about, however the LC subject scheme has a more robust authority architecture to provide cross-references for subject searches. In the world of key word and relevance searching, it is sort of a toss up. This title isn’t a fantastic example, but the LC scheme can get much more specific and in depth than the BISAC system and provide more words that can match a users search.
Given that all things are basically equal or slightly in favor of LC system, why change? It would cost us many, many, many $$$ to add BISAC headings to all of our records and would have limited benefit. Good luck to Phoenix though if it provides better usability of the webopac.
The second point was using BISAC as an actual shelving scheme. I looked up this title in the Mariposa Library catalog, and it isn’t good news. The heading they use isn’t exactly BISAC, but COOKING INTL. Sort of BISAC and sort of just wrong. Assuming that they had assigned the proper heading, using BISAC for shelving has the same problems as Dewey, should this book be shelved with Jewish cookbooks or with healthy eating cookbooks. We have used the call number of 641.5676 which is the Dewey number for Jewish cooking. COOKING INTL is of course just wrong, but if the BISAC heading were properly assigned it would provide a decent means to find the shelf location while not quite as exact as Dewey. The Dewey number and BISAC would share the benefit of having other Jewish and ethnic cookbooks nearby for added browsability.
I point back to my earlier argument…WHY SPEND HUNDREDs OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in time and materials to reorganize to another system when Dewey does the same thing better? Refer to my June 5th response for more reasons on why Dewey is better.
The last argument I would like to make against Ms. Schneider is her assumption that “Circulation is robust”. The obvious answer to that is that the Perry Branch is a BRAND NEW LIBRARY! Of course the circulation is up. It would be up if all of the books were in boxes and people had to scrounge through them. A new library always brings out new people and a boost in circulation. Ask Bethel and New Richmond how their new branches helped circ before the rental fees hit.
Ha! I'm not trying to put you in a position where you feel you need to defend your position. Honest =)
Having owned/worked in a bookstore, I find the idea of organizing a library according to BISAC daffy. There is a lack of consistency which can be absolutely frustrating.
I do wish that there was an easy way to use Dewey as the organizational underpinning with a better graphical user interface in the branches.
Just my two cents. I hvae been in bookstores many times when I could not even begin to locate a specific title because even the staff couldn't figure out if the item was in the religion section, the philosophy section, the self improvement section, the best sellers section, the discounted books section,etc.
And the fiction! Is it a romance? Is it a historical epic? Is it historical romance? And the ever popular "is it fantasy or science fiction debate?"
Give it LC subject headings and a call number and the problem is solved!!
Liz
Post a Comment
<< Home