Classification Schemes: Universal, Special, National

Brady D. Lund

University of North Texas Department of Information Science, [Link]@[Link]

In Reference Module in the Social Sciences ([Link]

Abstract
There are many classification schemes in use by libraries around the world today. They can
differ in several regards: whether they are enumerative (comprehensive and hierarchically
structured), faceted (containing composed categories that can be combined), or somewhere in-
between (e.g., analytico-synthetic); as well as whether the schemes are universal (designed to be
applicable to all of topical and geographical areas), national (designed to be primarily applicable
to a specific geographic area), or special (designed to be applicable to a specific subject, such a
“medicine” or “music”). This entry discusses the structure and history of these different
categories of schemes and examples of each, including Dewey Decimal, Universal Decimal,
Colon, and Library of Congress Classification as universal schemes, Nippon, Korean Decimal,
Library-Bibliographical, Chinese Library Classification as national schemes, and National
Library of Medicine, Iconclass, and Moys Classification as specialized schemes, among others.
The geographic dispersion and reasons for these schemes adoption, as well as possible rationale
for reclassification, are explored. By exploring the structure, history, and geographic dispersion
of various classification schemes, this entry offers a unique perspective on the ways in which
libraries and other organizations have sought to organize and classify information over time.
Keywords: Library Classification Schemes, Enumerative Classification, Faceted Classification,
Analytico-synthetic Classification, Universal Classification, National Classification, Specialized
Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification, Universal
Decimal Classification
Table of Contents
Types of Classification Schemes
Enumerative Versus Faceted Classification
Universal, National, and Special Schemes
Which Classification Schemes are Most Common?
General Universal and National Schemes
Dewey Decimal Classification
Library of Congress Classification
Universal Decimal Classification
A Comparison of the Main Classes in the Three Major Universal Schemes
 Colon Classification
Nippon Decimal Classification
Chinese Library Classification
Korean Decimal Classification
Library-Bibliographical Classification
Specialized Schemes
National Library of Medicine Classification
Moys Classification
Iconclass
Alpha-numeric System for Classification of Recordings
British Catalogue of Music Classification
BISAC/Reader-Interest Classification
Homegrown Classification
Major Conceptual Influences of Universal Schemes on National and Specialized Schemes
Future Trends in Classification
Glossary
Enumerative Classification Scheme: Classification scheme that aims to enumerate all existing
subjects within a single exhaustive listing.
Faceted Classification Scheme: Classification scheme that aims to organize knowledge into
facets, categories that can be combined to create a full listing.
Universal Classification Scheme: Classification scheme that is designed to serve libraries in a
variety of geographic and subject areas.
National Classification Scheme: Classification scheme that is designed to serve libraries
primarily in one particular geographic area.
Special Classification Scheme: Classification scheme that is designed to serve libraries primarily
in one particularly subject area.
Key Points
• Most popular library classification schemes today adopt both enumerative and faceted
concepts.
• Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress, and Universal Decimal Classification schemes are
prominent universal library classification schemes.
• National library classification schemes like Chinese Library and Korean Decimal
Classification have considerable prominence within their home nations.
• Many national and specialized classification schemes are modified versions of one of the
universal schemes.
• Classification schemes may evolve in classes and notation over time, but most have
considerable staying power.
 Introduction
There are many different library classification schemes in use around the world. As one might
expect, the adoption of these schemes tends to be geographically influenced. The most popular
schemes in the United States differ from the most popular schemes in Germany, which differ
from the most popular schemes in India. At the same time, schemes like Dewey Decimal
Classification, Library of Congress Classification, and Universal Decimal Classification have a
universal appeal. Thus, in some nations, like many in western Europe and North America, it is
not a matter of whether these three schemes have a presence in the country, but rather which
ones come out on top in terms of adoption. In some cases, the victor in this matter results from a
careful examination of the usefulness of various classification schemes, based on issues like
granularity, ease to use, and compatibility with collections (Lund and Agbaji, 2018). In other
cases, a scheme is preferred largely because of tradition – in other words, “it is the only one I
know” (Lund and Agbaji, 2018, p. 385).
Library type, collection size, and collection content can also influence the adoption of a
particular classification scheme(Chan and Salaba, 2015). Even in a country where one scheme is
dominant in most libraries, a law library is likely to use a scheme tailored to serving subjects
related to the law, and a medical library is likely to employ classification suitable for medicine.
The confluence of geography-influenced preferences and library specialization results in there
being no one “globally dominant” scheme. Rather, popular schemes tend to follow a similar set
of principles and then branch off in a variety of directions to suit the needs and tastes of libraries.
For this reason, this entry will begin by summarizing the major types of classification schemes –
namely, enumerative, faceted, and analytico-synthetic classification and universal, national, and
special schemes – before discussing the most common classification schemes in each category
and where and in which libraries they are most often used.
Types of Classification Schemes
This entry primarily discusses the various classification schemes that are in use around the
world. In order to begin to introduce these schemes, however, it is first important to understand
the major distinctions among classification schemes, including the different types of
classification – in particular, the division between enumerative schemes, which are more
common in North America, Africa, and Australia, and faceted schemes, which are more common
in Asia and Europe. From there, classification schemes can be further divided based on whether
they serve general, global classification purposes (universal schemes), general, national
classification purposes (national schemes), or specific global or national purposes (special). The
quick primers that follow will set the scene for further discussion about the various classification
schemes used by libraries around the world.
Enumerative versus Faceted Classification
Enumerative classification schemes attempt to comprehensively list all possible subclasses
within the scheme. For instance, if one is looking to classify resources related to library
management principles, they may encounter an arrangement of subclasses that look like:
 • Museum
o Public
▪ Management Principles for Public Museums
▪ Public Services for Public Museums
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Public Museums
o Academic
▪ Management Principles for Academic Museums
▪ Public Services for Academic Museums
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Academic Museums
o Special
▪ Management Principles for Special Museums
▪ Public Services for Special Museums
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Special Museums
• Library
o Public
▪ Management Principles for Public Libraries
▪ Public Services for Public Libraries
▪ Reference and Instruction for Public Libraries
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Public Libraries
o School
▪ Management Principles for School Libraries
▪ Public Services for School Libraries
▪ Reference and Instruction for School Libraries
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for School Libraries
o Academic
▪ Management Principles for Academic Libraries
▪ Public Services for Academic Libraries
▪ Reference and Instruction for Academic Libraries
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Academic Libraries
o Special
▪ Management Principles for Special Libraries
▪ Public Services for Special Libraries
▪ Reference and Instruction for Special Libraries
▪ Acquisitions and Technical Services for Special Libraries
In this case, the purpose of the organization is to be exhaustive by directly applying the
“management principles” subclass, along with the other three subclasses, to each of the four
types of libraries, causing an overlap where the final subclasses is repeated. One can imagine, as
whenever storing and retrieving large amount of data or information, that redundancy is the
enemy of economy. More options need to be stored; more time needs to be taken for retrieval.
However, that is not to say that there are no benefits of enumerative classification. They provide
clarity – when you select the subclass of library>public>management principles, the hierarchy
and relationship of these concepts is concrete – and the notation is simple, as in the example
library>public>management principles.
Faceted classification schemes, on the other hand, utilize facets so that subclasses do not overlap.
Each attribute, or facet, of the resource being described is presented as a separate entity (Herring,
2007). For instance, given the same management principles example above, the scheme may
look like:
• Organizational Facet
o Museum
o Library
• Type Facet
o Public
o School
o Academic
o Special
• Service Aspect Facet
o Management Principles
o Public Services
o Reference and Instruction
o Acquisitions and Technical Services
This faceted scheme avoids the complexity of the enumerative scheme. It reduces 32
subcategories into 10. This allows for searching that can have substantial specificity while taking
up far less space. This also supports the creation of new combinations for emerging subjects. For
example, in the enumerative scheme, no option is available for “reference and instruction” in
museums. If reference and instruction became popular in museums, then an entire new group of
subclasses would need to be added. With the faceted scheme, though, the options for “museum”
and “reference and instruction” combinations already exist. Nothing new need be created to
accommodate.
However, faceted classification also has limitations. The particular order by which concepts are
arranged can be important. For instance, a “school library” is very different from a “library
school.” Additionally, what seems more simplistic on the surface can become complex as it
grows. With enumerative classification, there is only one “museum>public>management
principles” subclass. It can be searched for and selected with a single click if one knows where to
go, without having to sort through any additional options. Yet, with faceted classification, one
must select the appropriate option for each of the three categories in order to achieve the same
level of specificity. Imagine a classification scheme with hundreds of facets, and it can be seen
why this approach may be less preferable.
Classification schemes often use concepts from both of these classification approaches. For
instance, both of the two most common classification schemes in the United States, Dewey
Decimal Classification (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC), are enumerative
schemes, though LCC is more strictly so than DDC and neither are purely enumerative (Robare
et al., 1999). These classification schemes employ Analytico-synthetic concepts, whereby the
constituent aspects of a resource are classified, and then these classifiers are combined to create a
single call number (i.e., facets) (Broughton, 2006). For instance, Dewey Decimal Classification
utilizes facets to allow the cataloger to combine numbers that correspond to the multiple
attributes of a resource. The first three numbers in a call number (such as 316) indicate the
general subject or class for the resource (in this case, “statistics of Africa”), while the numbers
following the decimal (such as in 316.2045) refine the subject based on other facets relevant to
that specific resource.
Universal, National, and Special Schemes
Classification schemes serve a variety of needs. Universal schemes are classification schemes
that are versatile – able to be used across countries and contexts – and have expansive coverage
of all subjects. An example of this type of scheme is Library of Congress Classification. This
classification scheme consists of 21 main classes divided into subject areas ranging from
philosophy, to geography, to technology, to reference works. It is not specific to one subject or
era, nor is it designed to complement resources available in one specific country – though the
scheme does have somewhat of a United States-centric bias.
National schemes are classification schemes that are designed to serve the organization of
materials within a particular country. A good example of a national scheme is the Chinese
Library Classification scheme, designed for use by libraries in China. Though this classification
scheme is heavily influenced by a universal scheme in the Library of Congress Classification (22
alphabetical classes), it has been modified to provide coverage of topics unique to China, with
the most notable differences being Class A, which contains materials relating to Communism
and the Communist Revolution, and Class D and Z, which contain extensive sections on
Communist rule and Chinese history reference, respectively.
Special schemes are classification schemes designed to serve a specific purpose. For example,
the British Catalogue of Music (BCM) Classification scheme is a, now largely defunct, scheme
designed specifically to organize the music collections of the British Catalogue of Music. While
the scheme takes influence from some universal schemes, most notably the Colon Classification
scheme of S.R. Ranganathan and its faceted approach (described more later in this entry), it was
retrofitted to serve the organization’s needs and, thus, would not be suitable for other general or
specialized purposes, such as organizing a complete academic library or organizing a library of
chemistry materials.
Which Classification Schemes are Most Common?
There is no universally “best” classification scheme – it is a matter of preference and suitability
for a specific library, as all types of schemes have strengths and weaknesses. However, it is true
that most regions of the world have particular classification schemes that most libraries prefer. In
the United States, for instance, academic libraries are increasingly favoring the Library of
Congress Classification scheme (Lund and Agbaji, 2018b). In India, home of the renowned
library science scholar S.R. Ranganathan, the Colon Classification scheme, which Ranganathan
developed, is by far the most commonly searched (though it may not be the most commonly used
scheme). In the following sections of this entry, we will look at many of the most popular
classification schemes and the reasons why they may have gained their popularity.
Figure 1 illustrates the most popular classification schemes by search volume, using Google
Trends data. This is not necessarily indicative of the most commonly used classification schemes
in these countries, but nonetheless provides compelling insight into the schemes of interest.
Notably, the United States and Canada most frequently seek information related to the Library of
Congress Classification scheme – and we do know from recent studies that Library of Congress
Classification has eclipsed in Dewey Decimal in many types of libraries (Lund and Agbaji,
2018b) – as well as North Africa and several Arab countries. Dewey Decimal Classification is
most common for Australia and South Africa. Universal Decimal Classification is most common
in South America and most of Europe. Meanwhile, Colon Classification and Chinese Library
Classification are overwhelmingly the most common in India and China, respectively.
Figure 1. Most Searched Classification Schemes by Country
<PLACE FIGURE 1 AROUND HERE>
According to OCLC (2022a), libraries in over 135 countries use the Dewey Decimal
Classification scheme, on every continent except Antarctica, though the extent to which different
types of libraries use the scheme varies within these countries. Library of Congress Classification
can similarly boast usage in virtually all countries in the world (Library of Congress, 2022).
Other schemes, however, boast greater rates of adoption across certain countries, such as the
penetration of Colon Classification in India and Chinese Library Classification in China. Besides
those schemes shown in Figure 1, there are some additional national schemes that are
overwhelmingly popular in one country alone. Korean Decimal Classification is top in South
Korea (97% of search volume). Nippon Classification is 99% of search volume in Japan.
Library-Bibliographical Classification is 26% of search volume in Russia.
In the following section, these popular universal (Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress,
Universal Decimal, Colon) and national (Chinese Library, Korean Decimal, Library-
Bibliographical, Nippon Decimal) schemes will be explored in greater detail.
General Universal and National Schemes
Dewey Decimal Classification
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is perhaps the most widely known classification scheme
worldwide, in part owing to its long history and its association with its creator, Melvil Dewey.
Dewey Decimal Classification has existed for decades longer than the other popular library
classification schemes today, with its inception being in the 1870s (Wiegand, 1998). For over
half of a century, DDC dominated library classification around the globe, supported by a
recommendation by the International Library Association as the international system of
classification in 1895 (Library Journal, 1896). Efforts by some prominent libraries to reclassify
from DDC to Library of Congress Classification emerged in the 1930s (Tauber, 1942), but
Dewey remained dominant into the 1960s and, indeed, remains very common among libraries
today.
Dewey Decimal is a universal classification scheme, designed to be used across a variety of
global and topical contexts, though the age of the scheme means that some classes, at inception,
were much closer to a national scheme, reflecting the culture, politics, and geography of the
United States. However, efforts by the administrators of the Dewey Decimal scheme – most
recently OCLC, a nonprofit organization in the United States – have sought to consistently
refresh the scheme to reflect societal changes and changes within libraries and demands for
expansion, which is why 23 editions have been published over the system’s 140-year history
(OCLC, 2022b).
The Dewey Decimal system is based on 10 main classes (in intervals of 100, starting with 000),
each of which are divided into 10 subclasses (intervals of 10, starting with 00), each of which are
then further subdivided into 10 sections (intervals of 1, starting with 0), resulting in 1000
possible top-level sections, from 000 to 999 (not all are currently in use). From there, further
subdivisions are made through the use of decimals, which are modifiers of the subject. For
instance, the main class of 500 is for Mathematics and Science, 530 is for Physics, 535 is for
Light and Related Radiations, and 535.6 is for Color (the physical phenomenon created from
light). Specific resources are then assigned Cutter Numbers, which utilize the first author’s last
name to assign an alphanumeric code where the first letter of the name is used along with a
numeric code for the two letters that follow (based on established Cutter tables). For instance,
C36 is used for Campbell, where “C” is the first letter and 36 corresponds to the Cutter codes for
of “a” for a second letter and “m” for a third.
Dewey Decimal Classification remains popular in the United States, in small academic as well as
public and school libraries, as well as Australia, and Arabic and Middle Eastern countries
stretching from Pakistan in the northeast to Egypt in the southwest (Ahmed, 2020; Idrees, 2012;
National Library of Australia, 2022). In many of the cases of expansion outside of the United
States, it was direct disciples of Melvil Dewey who brought the scheme to these countries while
the art and science librarianship was still in its infancy and since became embedded into the
fabric of library operations (McKinlay, 1980).
There are certainly some well documented issues with the Dewey Decimal Classification
scheme. As noted, the scheme had, especially at its inception, a bias towards the United States,
and everything it represented at the time, which included Christianity and white men at the
expense of other religions and population (Kua, 2008). However, it is important to note that
OCLC refutes many of these claims. In response to the problematic classes, class names, and
Americocentric nature of the scheme, it has long been the position of officials associated with the
scheme that this bias reflected the time in which DDC was created, but DDC is a living scheme
that is consistently updated as society and culture evolve (Comaromi and Satija, 1985).
Additionally, it may be argued that the bias in DDC is not unique to it alone, but also affects all
classification schemes. This premise alone is not sufficient for some librarians and library
scholars, and there has been a renewed drive in recent years to examine biases in the Dewey
Decimal system from the lens of critical race theory (Furner, 2007; Higgins, 2016).
Variants
The Dewey Decimal Classification system has been extensively adopted and adapted in Middle
Eastern and Arabic countries. Certainly, because many aspects of Middle Eastern geography and
culture are distinct from that of the United States, many of the Dewey classes will not be relevant
or sufficient for libraries in the Middle East. Momeni (1985) provides the most detailed
description of the key differences. The amount and type of detail within the classes and
subclasses relevant to Islam, law and legal theory, language, art and literature, and history are
among the most substantial differences. Even amongst Middle East and Arabic nations,
substantial distinctions exist, as classification needs in Egypt are distinct from those of Pakistan
or Iran (Haider, 2006; Jolegepoor and Salami, 2021).
Korean Decimal Classification and Nippon Decimal Classification also take significant
inspiration from DDC. These schemes are discussed in more detail under their own headings
later in the entry.
Library of Congress Classification
It is often said that Library of Congress Classification began with the collections of Thomas
Jefferson (Chan et al., 2016). During the War of 1812, Britain destroyed the original
Congressional Library and its collections and Jefferson’s extensive collections, ranging across all
major subjects, helped fill the gap created by this loss. While that is true to the extent that
Jefferson’s collections helped rebuild the Library of Congress (and is an interesting connection
between libraries and the U.S. Presidency), the true development of the scheme should be
recognized as the work of James Hanson and Charles Martel under the direction of Librarians of
Congress John Young and Herbert Putnam in the final years of the 19th and early years of the
20th centuries. As is a common theme among the classification schemes discussed throughout
this entry, LCC is also informed by those schemes and ideas which preceded it, including Dewey
Decimal Classification and Cutter’s Expansive Classification.
21 main classes exist in LCC. These are denoted by a single letter (A-Z, excluding the letters I,
O, W, X, and Y). These main classes represent the general subject area, ranging from General
Works (A) to Library Science Resources (Z). The main class is then paired with a sub-class,
creating a two-letter combination. The content of the subclasses is not universal across all main
classes, as it might be in a faceted scheme; for instance, PA is used for Greek Languages, but DE
and DF are used for the Greco-Roman World and the History of Greece. The letter combination
is followed by a classification number, which defines a subtopic – for instance, you might find a
book on Alexander the Great in DF 234. Often, this call number is then followed by three more
lines of text: A Cutter number, which indicates the name of the author or work; a publication
year; and a copy number, if the library owns multiple copies of a text. Compared to DDC, LCC
allows for greater expression of scholarly topics within its classes and greater specificity to find a
particular instance (e.g., copy 3 of the 1978 print edition) of a resource.
Library of Congress Classification has become increasingly popular among academic libraries,
especially in North America and Africa, according to a series of studies published in 2018 and
2019 (Lund and Agbaji, 2018a; Lund and Agbaji, 2018b; Lund et al., 2019). The first of these
studies, a review of library classification at U.S.-based academic libraries found that Library of
Congress Classification increased in the classification scheme of choice from 57.2% in 1975 to
81.1% in 2017, as it replaced the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme. A second study in the
Federal Republic in Nigeria found that over 90% of academic libraries utilize the LCC scheme
(Lund et al., 2019). Starker than the adoption of the schemes though, are the perceptions of
academic library faculty and staff towards these schemes. Among those academic library faculty
and staff in the United States, Library of Congress Classification is preferred over Dewey
Decimal Classification by a margin of 32% for ease of use and 46% for effectiveness of
organization. Among Nigerian respondents, these differences were 73% and 89%, respectively.
Variants
As with Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification has invited the
development of variations over the years since its inception. In some cases, variants emerge
because of the inadequacy of LCC in certain regions and topics. For instance, the University of
Waikato in New Zealand adapted LCC for use with topics relating to the history of the Maori
people (Adler, 2017). In other instances, variations with LCC may be the product of some
topic/cultural variation combined with features adapted from previous classification schemes
used by the libraries. In many African countries, Universal Decimal Classification was used for
many years, as it was introduced by European countries prior to these countries gaining
independence. For instance, Nigeria and Kenya are two large and economically expanding
nations that only earned their independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960s, long after
the establishment of UDC as the standard for library classification in most of Europe. As
universities in these countries transition to LCC, which they deem to be more appropriate for the
needs of their academic libraries, many have a long history with UDC with which they must
negotiate (Kilemba, 2011).
Additional variants of the LCC include several of the specialized classification schemes, like the
National Library of Medicine Classification scheme, which will be discussed in more detail in
the appropriate sections.
Universal Decimal Classification
Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is among the most popular schemes in the world and
has particular prominence in Europe. It is a scheme that has its roots in another decimal-based
scheme – Dewey Decimal Classification – but departs in its ability to employ more substantive
facets. In fact, one of the creators of UDC, Paul Otlet, was a leader in the development of faceted
classification and was an influence on the work of S.R. Ranganathan (McIlwaine, 1997). The
system was unique at the time of its development in that it employs a variety of symobls (+, /, :,
[], =, (), “”, -) in conjunction with decimals in order to express various facets.
UDC, on the surface, does look similar to DDC. Many call numbers consist of three digits
followed by a decimal and then further digits. However, the call numbers are constructed and
read very differently. UDC utilizes a system of ones rather than hundreds. In DDC, the 100 class
is for philosophy and psychology. In UDC, it is the 1 class. Each digit then adds a new layer of
specificity and call numbers are sorted in order from left to right (as with Cutter numbers, which
are used in LCC), which differs significantly from DDC. For instance, in DDC, a call number of
15 would come before a call number of 148.3, because one hundred forty-eight is greater than
fifteen, but not in UDC. In UDC, order is treated from left to right, and 5 is greater than 4. The
number 148 does not mean one hundred forty-eight, but rather one four eight. A better way to
look at this issue for those familiar with DDC may be to think of one- and two-digit UDC call
numbers as having invisible zeros at the end. 15 is not the same as 015, then. It is equivalent
to15X or 150 in a Dewey-type system.
UDC also employs the connected symbols discussed above. This allows for materials that span
multiple topic areas to be precisely described without resorting to lengthy decimals. For instance,
you can combine a main topic area, like architecture (72) with a secondary topic like artificial
intelligence (004.8) using the symbol +, to produce this call number: 72+004.8. This method to
assigning call numbers ensures that each individual digit used in a call number has meaning. 07
(newspaper journalism) is different from 7 (the arts), which is very different from 7+0 (the arts +
science and knowledge).
A study by Slavic (2008) analyzed the landscape of UDC usage worldwide through surveys and
literature searching. This study found that 91% of surveyed countries in Europe, and 85% in
South America, had libraries using UDC, compared to only 58% in Asia, 55% in Africa, and a
mere 30% in North America and Australia/Southern Pacific. Unlike with DDC and LCC, which
have experienced a retraction and expansion in usage, respectively, UDC usage appears to have
remained relatively stable. Given its age (being first developed in the 1890s) and improvements
upon DDC, many libraries in Europe and other regions have both 1) used this scheme for a long
time, and 2) seen less need or ability to reclassify to another scheme.
A Comparison of Main Classes in the Three Major Universal Schemes
Table 1 compares the main classes for three of the major universal classification schemes:
Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress, and Universal Decimal. Notably, DDC and UDC have
similarities. They both employ numbers for main classes (multiples of 0 – 9), and virtually all of
the main classes align (0 and 000, 1 and 100, and so on). Only at the level of subclasses and
facets do the distinctions become clearer. LCC, on the other hand, represents an entirely distinct
set of main classes. While A roughly aligns with 0 in UDC and 000 in DDC, and B with 1 and 2
in UDC and 100 and 200 in DDC, the similarities quickly end. Class C – G, for example, focus
on history and geography, which are the final classes for UDC and DDC.
The distinctions between these classification schemes is one of the reasons that reclassification is
such a massive endeavor. There is no good short cut to translate the call numbers. It is like
translating English to Arabic – they are both languages, but the entire style from the alphabet to
the writing direction is different – compared to English to Spanish, in which there are many
similarities between the two languages.
Dewey Decimal (DDC) Universal Decimal (UDC) Library of Congress (LCC)
000 – Computer Science, 0 – Science and Knowledge, A – General Works
Information, General Works Computer and Information B – Philosophy, Psychology,
100 – Philosophy and Science Religion
Psychology
 200 – Religion 1 – Philosophy and C – Auxiliary Sciences of
300 – Social Sciences Psychology History
400 – Language 2 – Religion D – World History
500 – Mathematics and 3 – Social Sciences E & F – History of the
Science 5 – Mathematics and Natural Americas
600 – Technology Sciences G – Geography,
700 – Arts and Recreation 6 – Applied Sciences, Anthropology, Recreation
800 – Literature Medicine, and Technology H – Social Sciences
900 – History and Geography 7 – Arts, Recreation, J – Political Science
Entertainment K – Law
8 – Language and Literature L – Education
9 – Geography and History M – Music
N – Fine Arts
P – Language and Literature
Q – Science
R – Medicine
S – Agriculture
T – Technology
U – Military Science
V – Naval Science
Z – Bibliography and Library
Science

Colon Classification
Colon Classification (CC) is sometimes referred to as the first fully faceted classification
scheme. Its creator, S.R. Ranganathan, is widely known not only for his role in the development
of faceted classification but also his Five Laws of Library Science and the modernization of
librarianship in India. The Colon Classification is, no doubt, informed by the philosophy outlined
in Ranganathan’s Five Laws:
• Books are for use
• Every person their book
• Every book its reader
• Save the time of the reader
• Libraries are growing organisms (Ranganathan, 1931).
Library classification schemes must be comprehensive, intuitive, and robust in the face of
change. Colon Classification embraces this mantra by refining knowledge to 42 main classes that
are then refined via facets (Ranganathan, 1937). These facets describe five aspects of works
(often referred to by their acronym PMEST):
• Personality: the central subject of a work (,)
• Matter: the properties of the subject (;)
• Energy: relating to activities expressed (:)
 • Space: the geographic location (.)
• Time: temporal aspects of the subject (‘) (Satija, 2017).
An initial personality facet can be applied directly to the main class. For example, E refers to
chemistry. E118 refers to gold. Following the first facet, the notation above is used to build the
call numbers. For instance, E118,6 is used for a gold sulphur compound (gold sulphide).
E118,6:38 is the analysis of gold sulphide. The value of this faceted system, though it can seem
complex at first, is that it becomes considerably simpler once one learns the notation and allows
for precision. This level of precision is what sets Colon Classification apart from DDC and LCC.
Today, Colon Classification is somewhat popular in India (though usage is likely declining), but
has few adherents elsewhere (Satija, 2017). This limited usage of CC is not necessarily a
reflection of the value or practicality of the scheme, but may be due to the lack of infrastructural
support for CC compared to DDC (which is supported by OCLC) and LCC (which is supported
by the Library of Congress).
Nippon Decimal Classification
The initial growth of DDC in the early 20th century spread across the globe. Even in those
countries where DDC did not “catch on,” it certainly had tremendous influence over
classification theory around the world. This is particularly true in the Eastern Hemisphere, where
the classes used in DDC did not suit well the cultural, political, and religious knowledge within
these countries. Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) is one such scheme, being first introduced
in Japan in the 1920s.
NDC is the first of several national schemes that will be discussed. Though Colon Classification
is primarily used only in India, it is designed to be compatible with libraries worldwide. NDC, on
the other hand, is primarily designed for libraries in Japan. Developments in Japan during the
time of NDC creation and growth perhaps give some context for why this scheme took hold. The
reign of Emperor Hiroshito (1926 – 1989) marked growing nationalism in Japan, culminating in
its involvement as an Axis power in World War II (Miura, 2019).
How does Nippon Decimal Classification differ from Dewey Decimal Classification? It bases its
classes on Charles Cutter’s Expansive Classification (Fujikura, 2020). Among the main classes,
there is only one class for each scheme that does not have a counterpart in the other; for NDC
this is “Industry,” while for DDC this is “Religion.” In NDC, philosophy and religion are
combined in the “Philosophy” class. Besides this switch out, many of the main classes have
different numbers: History is 900s in DDC and 200s in NDC; Language is 400s in DDC and
800s in NDC; Natural Sciences are 500s in DDC and 400s in NDC; Technology is 600s in DDC
and 500s in NDC; and Literature is 800s in DDC and 900s in NDC. The divisions, notation and
number creation also have similarities to DDC, though Japanese history and culture is typically
prioritized.
Chinese Library Classification
China has a long history of library classification. Long before Melvil Dewey or the Library of
Congress, Chinese libraries led the way in the development of what would become library
classification principles. Modern and contemporary library classification in China, however, has
become intertwined with China’s history with European colonialism, Western/American
influences, and the Chinese and Cultural Revolutions. What has resulted is a scheme that has an
evident basis in the principles of DDC yet simultaneously eschews Western influence, guided in
its creation by “Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought,” with a view towards, “dialectical
and historical materialism” (Li, 1992, p. 16).
Following the end of the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the mid-1970s, rapid social and
economic reform occurred, which extended to libraries. The purpose of Chinese Library
Classification (CLC) was to streamline classification throughout the country, improving library
efficiency and their role in education and society (Liu-Lengyel, 1987). CLC has 22 main classes
that exist within five categories of thought: Marxist and Maoist theory, philosophy and religion,
social science, natural sciences, and reference works. The scheme is enumerative, with there
being thousands of subclasses. CLC is also rapidly growing, as new subclasses are needed to
align with new and/or growing areas of knowledge within the country. These factors can result in
some unwieldy call numbers.
Chinese Library Classification is, essentially, only used in China. However, the penetration of
the scheme among the nation’s libraries is nearly absolute. This is significant because there are
thousands of libraries in China and nearly one-quarter of the world’s population. The economic
importance of China to many other countries today may increase the likelihood of Chinese ideas
like CLC being adopted elsewhere.
Korean Decimal Classification
Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) is a national classification scheme for the Republic of
Korea (South Korea). As with the national schemes discussed previously, KDC certainly did not
develop in isolation from DDC. In fact, KDC takes heavy inspiration from DDC, though it is not
a direct translation and there are some key differences between the two schemes:
• KDC, like Nippon Decimal Classification, has a greater emphasis on natural sciences
(especially mathematics, physics, and engineering) and technology, while DDC has a
greater emphasis on the social sciences;
• KDC often has more detailed subdivisions than DDC (especially in the natural sciences
and technology);
• KDC better reflects the Republic of Korea’s history and culture through its classes and
divisions (Choi, 2018).
Notation and the main classes within KDC are similar to DDC. Three digits (000 – 999) are
followed by a decimal and additional digits that expand specificity. However, the subdivisions in
KDC can be quite different from DDC. For instance, Oh (2012) gives the example of computer
science hardware being split among three classes in DDC (004, 005, and 621.39) but only a
single class in KDC (004), where the subdivisions do more work to contain all resources within
this one class.
Though much less is known about library classification (and libraries in general) in the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea), there is indication that some version of
KDC is employed (Nam, 2000). This classification, however, may have evolved from the
predecessor of the KDC used in South Korea today, rather than the same scheme. The KDC
scheme used in the South was developed in the 1960s, well after the split between the North and
South. However, there were predecessors to this scheme that also used decimal notation similar
to DDC. It is likely that one of these predecessor schemes developed into the scheme used today
in the North and that, like with Chinese Library Classification, the classes within the scheme are
also influenced by Marxist theory.
Library-Bibliographical Classification
In Russia, Universal Decimal Classification is likely the most common classification scheme.
Top universities in the western parts of the country, in particular, benefit from using a scheme
that aligns with peers in Europe. However, Russia also has a national scheme that is used by
many libraries to this day. This scheme was first published in the 1960s. Unlike the previously
discussed national classification schemes, LBC is quite dissimilar from DDC, instead taking its
influence from UDC. LBC is divided into “issues” that range from natural sciences to
psychology (Sukiasyan, 1988). The original edition of the scheme also contained issues for
Marxism-Leninism, similar to the schemes still in use in China and North Korea.
The LBC call number begins with the main issue, such as “2” for Natural Sciences. A
subdivision can be applied as a second number. For example, 22 refers to Physical and
Mathematical Sciences. A decimal can then be used to further divide, such as 22.3 for Physics.
As with UDC, additional divisions can be appended to the call number using a variety of
symbols: a hyphen for territorial characteristics; a comma for physiographic characteristics, and
an equals sign for language characteristics. This information is then appended together to form
the final call number, such as in 22.3,5. This final product looks very similar to a UDC call
number, and different from the call numbers in DDC and LCC.
Specialized Schemes
Specialized schemes are simply classification schemes that are designed to serve specialized
collections or purposes. Often, very large disciplines, like medicine, law, and art find that the
classes and divisions devised by a universal scheme (DDC, LCC, UDC) do not satisfy the
classification needs for their documents. These schemes often start with a basis in one of the
universal schemes and are then adjusted as needed. Most of these schemes also emerged during
the 1940s through 1960s, a period of renewed investment in science, technology, and higher
education for much of the world. This section details a handful of important and interesting
specialized schemes in use today.
National Library of Medicine Classification
As noted previously, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Classification scheme is based
upon Library of Congress Classification. The scheme uses only two main classes: Q, which is for
preclinical sciences like immunology and anatomy, and W, which is for medicine/medical
practice. Interestingly, though LCC uses R for medicine, NLM does not use this class. In
addition, it does not use the same subclasses within the Q class. For example, QM is Human
Anatomy in LCC, but QS is Human Anatomy in NLM. NLM only uses subclasses that are not
utilized in LCC, so that academic medical libraries can use the two schemes concurrently. While
some may view it as simply an extension of LCC, this is not accurate, since the classification
both A) ignores classes A and QA-QR, which exist within LCC, and B) is maintained by the
National Library of Medicine not the Library of Congress (National Library of Medicine, 1994).
While NLM Classification is only used for special purposes, its geographic reach is worldwide.
Unlike Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress, and Universal Decimal Classification, National
Library of Medicine Classification has few significant rivals. Before NLM Classification, DDC,
LCC, and UDC were used by various medical libraries (Scheerer and Hines, 1974). The Boston
Medical Library Classification was another scheme common before and, for a while, as an
alternative to NLM, however it has fallen out of favor. Boston Medical used a numbered schema
(main classes numbered 1 – 42) and focused solely on medical topics; however, this focus may
be partly responsible for its decline, since NLM Classification is much more compatible with
other classification schemes used by academic libraries (Kennedy, 1953).
Moys Classification
Moys Classification is similar to NLM Classification in the sense that it was built to supplement
Library of Congress Classification. In this case, the focus was on classes related to legal
materials. In LCC, class K is used for materials relating to the law. However, like with medicine,
many in the law librarianship profession found the existing class to be insufficient, especially in
the time that Moys Classification was proposed in the 1960s (Moys, 2012). As with NLM
classification, the subclasses within Moys do not align with those used for the same topics in
LCC. For example, in Moys classification KV is the class for European Law; in LCC, this is KJ
and KK. Unlike NLM classification, class K does exist in LCC, meaning that Moys serves as a
replacement for the K class, rather than a supplement. Besides the differences in classes, though,
the notation of Moys classification is very similar to LCC, making for easy interoperability.
Iconclass
Art libraries use a variety of classification schemes, including Dewey Decimal and Library of
Congress Classification, for their materials. While these universal schemes may be most
common, there are some specialized schemes for art libraries that have been proposed. Iconclass
is an art classification scheme, first developed in the 1940s and 1950s, that is used by some art
libraries today. Iconclass takes inspiration from DDC, but is itself distinct in terms of notation,
employing a combination of numbered pairs and letters (Couprie, 1983). Each item is organized
based on nine main classes, related to the subject of the art (numbered 1 – 9): Religion and
Magic; Nature; Human Being; Society, Civilization, and Culture; Abstract Ideas; History; Bible;
Literature; Classical Mythology and Ancient History. A subclass is then appended as a second
number; for instance, 14 for art subjects related to astrology. A letter then further subdivides the
subject, such as 14A for an astrological diagram. This subject can then be refined using a series
of numbers and keywords (like names of subjects) to refer to the specific artwork. Couprie
(1983, p. 44) uses the example of an artwork depicting “Socrates using a mirror to teach a youth
self-knowledge”: 98 B (SOCRATES) 51.
Alpha-Numeric System for Classification of Recordings
The Alpha-Numeric System for Classification of Recordings, or ANSCR, is a classification
scheme, developed in the 1960s, which is designed specifically for recorded music. The scheme
takes some light influence from LCC, using an alphanumeric notation whereby main classes are
specified through either a single letter or double letter combination (Kepich, 2020). For example,
B represents Operas, GV represents solo violin music, and MC represents Country Western
music. Resources are further classified based on the artist, or title/topic of the piece if no artist is
named (first four letters), initial letters for the name of the work, and information specifying the
production numbers.
British Catalogue of Music Classification
British Catalogue of Music (BCM) Classification is a scheme that has lost some popularity in
recent decades but remains in use among several collections across the United Kingdom. BCM
Classification is a fully faceted classification scheme, which distinguishes it from the ANSCR
(Coates, 1960). BCM also includes coverage of both musical literature and music compositions.
In BCM Classification, call numbers start with a letter or letters (could be up to five),
corresponding to the main class or subject. Genre specifications can be appended using a dash
and an additional letter code, with some letter codes being preceded by a forward slash (/) (e.g.,
C - /AD represents “studies of vocal music”). Then the first three letters of the writer/composer’s
last name complete the call number.
BISAC/Reader-Interest Classification
Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), or Reader-Interest, classification are
models of library classification that are based upon how books are commonly arranged at brick-
and-mortar bookstores. The purpose of these classification schemes is to organize materials
based on reader interests in order to increase ease of access. BISAC subject codes are published
by the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) and are regularly used throughout the publishing and
book selling industry. BISAC is not practical in academic libraries, given the immense (mostly
non-fiction) collections, but has been adopted by a growing number of public libraries (Martinez-
Avila, 2016). It is a rare scheme that caters well to the arrangement of fiction resources in
addition to non-fiction ones.
BISAC classification is rather straightforward. Classification codes begin with a three-letter code
that generally matches the first three letters of the subject (e.g., PSY for psychology, BUS for
business and economics) and then is followed by a six-digit code that specifies the subtopic(s),
where the first three digits specify a general subtopic (e.g., 001 for accounting, 012 for careers)
and the final three digits refer to a more specific subtopic (e.g., 000 for general, 020 for
governmental), so that a final code like BUS 001000 is used for business and economics –
accounting – general, or general accounting books. Within each specific subtopic, resources are
arranged by name. While this type of classification has obvious limitations for use in large
libraries, in small libraries (such as in rural communities), it may have considerable value for
patrons who are used to browsing based on bookstore topical arrangements.
Homegrown Classification
Before there was Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress classification – indeed, even before
Melvil Dewey and the Library of Congress itself existed, libraries around the world utilized
classification schemes based on the specific materials held within the library. If one has the
opportunity to peruse the early annals of Library Journal, for instance, they will find a number of
articles that discuss the classification schemes emerging. One such entry is “San Francisco
Cataloging,” which was developed for the San Francisco Free Public Library’s collections in the
1880s by Fred Perkins. The scheme recounted in this manuscript was designed specifically for
San Francisco’s collections (Perkins, 1884). Only recently was Perkin’s book made widely
available to the public again through reprints by online publishers like a 2019 edition by
Forgotten Books Publishing.
While homegrown classification, schemes designed to serve the needs of a single or small
number of libraries, was prominent in the 18th and 19th centuries, it never vanished during the
20th century and has perhaps even gained some steam in the 21st century. During the 1900s,
many libraries, particularly large public and academic ones, focused on building the most
extensive collections possible in order to serve a variety of disciplines. In recent decades,
however, many universities have focused on data-driven expansion in certain disciplines, while
many public libraries have sought to further pursue patron-driven acquisitions. This effort to
produce more specialized collections may result in a movement towards greater use of
homegrown or specialized classification schemes.
Figure 2. Major Conceptual Influences of Universal Schemes on National and Specialized
Schemes
<PLACE FIGURE 2 AROUND HERE>
Figure 2 shows the major influences of universal classification schemes on the national and
specialized schemes discussed in this entry. All schemes take some influence from multiple
others – certainly, all schemes subsequent to Dewey Decimal take some influence from it, as it
represented such a watershed moment in the history of library classification – but these schemes
had the most direct conceptual influences. BISAC does not take major influence from existing
schemes, while homegrown schemes can take influence from several existing schemes or from
none of them.
Future Trends in Classification
What is next for library classification? Some may say “irrelevance.” With the growth of our
online information infrastructures, will there be a need – or a value – to having print resources
available in the library in the future? The answer is likely yes, there will be a need for library
classification in the future; however, the size of print collections may decrease and specialization
may increase, inviting opportunities for changes in the classification schemes in use today. Some
universities may actually see value in reclassifying from LCC to DDC, instead of the other way
around. Conversely, the use of DDC may continue to dissipate due to a distaste for the perceived
bias of the scheme. A desire among public libraries to adopt BISAC to create a more user-
friendly browsing experience may grow. Homegrown classification may become less unusual.
These are all possibilities that could take hold, but they could also be nowhere near the reality.
After all, many predictions were made in the wake of the advent of the Internet and e-books that
did not materialize.
There has long been a discussion within library science about the need to adopt fully-faceted
schemes (Broughton, 2006). Facets allow for both clarity and growth (Mills, 2004). Nonetheless,
adoption of faceted schemes has been slow, so a major shift in this direction among libraries may
not be likely. Conversely, existing schemes like Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress have
adopted more faceted elements and this may be the future of facets within library classification.
This is an area worth watching as library classification evolves in coming decades. Those
interested in knowing more about how the various library classification schemes are preparing
for these future possibilities may wish to consult Marcella and Maltby’s (2016) The Future of
Classification.
Regardless of what the future of library classification holds, some things are likely to remain the
same. Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress, and Universal Decimal Classification will not
entirely vanish, nor will national schemes like Chinese Library and Korean Decimal
Classification. The prepotency of these schemes makes this clear. Learning about these schemes
is all the more important as they continue to evolve to serve the changing needs of libraries.
 References
Adler, M., 2017. The (de-)universalization of the United States: Inscribing Maori history in the
Library of Congress Classification, in The Organization of Knowledge. Emerald Publishing,
Bingley, UK, pp. 33-50.
Ahmed, I. A., 2020. Faculty of arts using electronic subject analysis tools in Egyptian libraries
and information centers (doctoral dissertation). Cairo University.
Broughton, V., 2006. The need for faceted classification as the basis of all methods of
information retrieval. Aslib Proceedings, 58(1/2), 49-72.
Chan, L. M., Intner, S. S., Weihs, J., 2016. Guide to the Library of Congress classification.
Libraries Unlimited, Santa Barbara, CA.
Chan, L. M., Salaba, A., 2015. Cataloging and classification: An introduction. Rowman and
Littlefield Publishing, Lanham, MD.
Choi, I., 2018. Toward a model of intercultural warrant: A case of the Korean Decimal
Classification’s cross-cultural adaptation of Dewey Decimal Classification (doctoral
dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Coates, E., 1960. The British Catalogue of Music Classification. Counsel of the British National
Bibliography, London, UK.
Couprie, L. D., 1983. Iconclass: An iconographic classification system. Art Libraries Journal,
8(2), 32-49.
Fujikura, K., 2020. Nippon Decimal Classification, in Hjorland, B., & Gnoli, C., Encyclopedia of
knowledge organization. [Link]
Furner, J., 2007. Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge
Organization, 34(3), 144-168.
Haider, S. J., 2006. Teaching of cataloging and classification in Pakistan. Cataloging and
Classification Quarterly, 43(1), 53-65.
Herring, S. C., 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.
Language@ Internet, 4(1). Retrieved from [Link]
Higgins, M., 2016. Totally invisible: Asian American representation in the Dewey Decimal
Classification, 1876-1996. Knowledge Organization, 43(8), 609-621.
Idrees, H., 2012. Library classification systems and organization of Islamic knowledge. Library
Resources and Technical Services, 56(3), 171-182.
Jolgepoor, M., Salami, M., 2021. Comparative study of books published in Iran until the end of
the 14th century based on Dewey Decimal Classification. Quarterly Knowledge and Information
Management Journal, 8(3), 43-58.
Kennedy, C., 1953. Boston Medical Library classification. Bulletin of the Medical Library
Association, 41(4), 343-349.
Kepich, J., 2020. Finding the ANSCR for media storage: Lessons from a renovation
reclassification. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 23(3/4), 142-152.
Kilema, L. M., 2011. Our safari in migrating from Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) to
Library of Congress Classification (LC), in the Proceedings of the IAMSLIC Conference, 7.
Retrieved from [Link]
Kua, E., 2004. Non-western languages and literatures in the Dewey Decimal Classification
scheme. Libri, 54(4), 256-265.
Li, L., 1992. A history of Chinese Library Classification: 1941 – 1991 (doctoral dissertation).
Southern Illinois University.
Library of Congress, (2022). Library of Congress Classification. Retrieved from
[Link]
Library Journal, 1896. The Dewey Decimal Classification abroad. Library Journal, 21(8), 369.
Liu-Lengyel, H., 1987. The development and use of the Chinese classification system.
International Library Review, 19(1), 47-60.
Lund, B. D., Agbaji, D. A., 2018a. What scheme do we prefer? An examination of preference
between Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal Classification among US-based academic
library employees. Knowledge Organization, 45(5), 380-392.
Lund, B. D., Agbaji, D. A., 2018b. Use of Dewey Decimal Classification by academic libraries
in the United States. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 56(7), 653-661.
Lund, B. D., Agbaji, D. A., Tijani, S., Omame, I., 2019. Evaluating knowledge organization in
developed and developing countries: A comparative analysis of Dewey Decimal and Library of
Congress Classification scheme preference and use in the United States and Nigeria. Technical
Services Quarterly, 36(3), 249-268.
Marcella, R., Maltby, A., 2016. The future of classification. Routledge, London, UK.
Martinez-Avila, D., 2016. BISAC: Book industry standards and communications. Knowledge
Organization, 43(8), 655-662.
McIlwaine, I. C., 1997. The Universal Decimal Classification: Some factors concerning its
origins, development, and influence. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 48(4), 331-339.
McKinlay, J., 1980. Classification in Australian libraries. Knowledge Organization, 7(3), 131-
134.
Mills, J., 2004. Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval. Library
Trends, 52(3), 541-570.
Miura, T., 2019. The Japan Library Association. International Journal of Librarianship, 4(2),
123-128.
Moys, E. M., 2012. Moys classification and thesaurus for legal materials. De Gruyter, Berlin,
DE.
Nam, T., 2000. A study on the library classification system of North Korea. Journal of the
Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 34(1), 71-92.
National Library of Australia, 2022. National library standards activities. Retrieved from
[Link]
National Library of Medicine, 1994. National Library of Medicine classification. National
Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C.
OCLC, 2022a. Countries with libraries that use the Dewey Decimal Classification system.
Retrieved from [Link]
OCLC, 2022b. A legacy of helping libraries. Retrieved from
[Link]
Oh, D., 2012. Developing and maintaining a national classification system: Experience from
Korean decimal classification. Knowledge Organization, 39(2), 72-82.
Perkins, F. B., 1884. San Francisco cataloging. C.A. Murdock & Co., San Francisco, CA.
Ranganathan, S. R., 1931. The five laws of library science. Edward Goldston, London, UK.
Ranganathan, S. R., 1937. Prolegomena to library classification. Madras Library Association,
Tamil Nadu, IN.
Robare, L., Arakawa, S., Frank, P., Trumble, B., 1999. Fundamentals of Library of Congress
Classification. Retrieved from
[Link]
Satija, M. R., 2017. Colon classification. Knowledge Organization, 44(4), 291-307.
Scheerer, G., Hines, L. E., 1974. Classification schemes used in medical libraries. Bulletin of the
Medical Library Association, 62(3), 273-280.
Slavic, A., 2008. Use of the Universal Decimal Classification: A worldwide survey. Journal of
Documentation, 64(2), 211-228.
Sukiasyan, E. R., 1988. Classification practice in the USSR: Current status and development
trends. Knowledge Organization, 15(2), 69-72.
Tauber, M. F., 1942. Classification of books in college and university libraries: Historical
aspects. Library Quarterly, 12(3), 706-724.
Wiegand, W. A., 1998. The “Amherst Method”: The origins of the Dewey Decimal
Classification scheme. Libraries and Culture, 33(2), 175-194.