Sarah Maddaford
Spring 2009

SLIS 5200 TXWC

Concept Briefing

Library of Congress Classification System

Abstract

The Library of Congress classification (LCC) system organizes the materials of the Library of Congress and many academic libraries according to a list of subject headings which correspond to twenty-one letters of the alphabet. This briefing provides the reader with an understanding of the importance of the LCC, a definition of the workings of the system and some of the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Librarians use the LCC both a system of classification and, more commonly now, an access point into online catalogs. This second use causes some concern to certain authors, but studies done in other articles indicate that this use presents a distinct value to patrons. The author of this briefing provides examples of the use of subject headings, or class numbers, to define specific subjects within a collection. The author hopes to give the reader a complete understanding of the use of the LCC in libraries today and its potential for library catalogs in the coming years.

Maddaford / TXWC / p. 1

Introduction

This briefing on the Library of Congress classification (LCC) system informs the reader about the importance of LCC, precisely defines the system in the context of library science, and identifies its advantages and pitfalls for use both as a method for cataloging and a tool for searching an online catalog.

Definition

The Library of Congress classification system “…uses a subset of the alphabet to divide its topmost level, providing 21 branches” (O’Neill, Dillon and Vizine-Goetz, 1987, p.197) creating “…a systematic and hierarchical arrangement… of subject classes…” (Bland and Stoffan, 2008, p.55) which Bland and Stoffan (2008) also state have four levels to progressively specify a subject. (p.55 and 56) The LCC is the system used by the Library of Congress to organize and classify their materials. Many academic libraries also use the LCC for their collections.

Purpose and implications

In LCC, “…ordering is alphabetic.” (O’Neill, 1987, p.197) Subrahmanyam (2006) asserts that “…the LCC scheme is widely used in academic libraries and, as an enumerative scheme, provides little idiosyncrasy in assigning class number” (p.112) for the purpose of creating call numbers in the libraries. Unfortunately, the LCC does allow for some inconsistencies in classification for cataloging amongst different libraries because some of the subjects occur in more than one schedule, or subject class. For example, “…classical philosophy exist[s] in both the B and PA schedules.” (Subrahmanyam, 2006, p.115) Subrahmanyam (2006) also states, within the same paragraph, that libraries use both schedules because some of the texts are original copies (PA) while others are translations and thus belong in B for religion. This explains why Bland and Stoffan (2008) indicate that the LCC “…has not really been tested as an online retrieval tool in a live catalog…” (p.56) because the “…relationships between [subject] headings… are often… idiosyncratic, and… potentially meaningless.” (Jacob, 2004, p.536) Jacob (2004) believes this partly because “…the supposed nesting structure is circular…” (p.536) which prevents a system based on the LCC from accurately obtaining all the information for a patron who does not understand the system. If the reader agrees with Jacob, then the LCC can not be used for searching live catalogs. In this scenario, the LCC remains as the classification system for a number of libraries including the Library of Congress and many university libraries, but is never available as a search option. Bland and Stoffan as well as Subrahmanyam think that searchers of online catalogs benefit greatly from a system that includes the subject headings of the LCC especially when used like the Western North Carolina Library Network that Bland and Stoffan cite in their article. The WNCLN allows patrons to search the catalog by clicking on the Class, which has a description of its content, and then further narrowing the search by selecting subclasses.

Examples

The Library of Congress classification system utilizes 21 letters of the alphabet as its Classes or main subject headings. The classes are further divided into subclasses and specific class numbers that indicate specific subjects.

Example 1: P321.324.5
The first example points out the specific subject of etymology within the LCC. P321.324.5 identifies etymology under Class P for language and literature and the subclass P for linguistics and other related topics. (Pietris, 2003, p.78)

Example 2: Z657-659
The specific subject in this example is freedom of the press and censorship. Z657-659 identifies this subject under Class Z for bibliography, library science and information resources (general). It fits under the subclass Z that pertains to books and writing. (Pietris, 2003, p.122)

Example 3: HQ450-472

This example has the specific subject of erotica. HQ450-472 identifies erotica under Class H for Social Sciences and the subclass that includes life, gender, sex, family, marriage and children HQ. (Pietris, 2003, p.42)

Example 4: BF1444-1486

The specific subject for this example is ghosts, apparitions, and hauntings. BF1444-1486 identifies these under Class B for philosophy, psychology and religion. The subclass for this specific subject is BF which includes matters of psychology. (Pietris, 2003, p.4)

Conclusion

The LCC provides organization for books and other materials through the use of multi-tiered subject headings. The system causes concern for some people in regards to its use for access and retrieval in online catalogs, but this author believes as Bland, Stoffan and Subrahmanyam do that the LCC is applicable for use as an access point into library collections as well as a system for classification in the Library of Congress. The idiosyncrasies caused by cross topic materials and secondary class numbers (Subrahmanyam, 2006) provide additional specification to the call number of each item. If librarians at the Library of Congress standardize some of these secondary class numbers, they allow a broader range of search terms for patrons. Any collection that uses the LCC subjects as an access point needs to include the contents of each subject next to the letter for the ease of inexperienced patrons, but catalog searching gains flexibility with more access points, which enables more patrons to find the answers they are seeking.

References

Bland, R. N., & Stoffan, M. A. (2008). Returning classification to the catalog. Information Technology & Libraries, 27(3), 55-60.

Jacob, E. K. (2004). Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference. Library Trends, 52(3), 515-540.

O'Neill, E. T., Dillon, M., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (1987). Class dispersion between the library of congress classification and the dewey decimal classification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(3), 197-205.

Pietris, M. K. D. (Ed) (2003). LC classification outline (7th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Cataloging and Distribution Service.

Subrahmanyam, B. (2006). Library of congress classification numbers: Issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs. Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 110-119.