18 Why classify when “Everything is miscellaneous”?

While on this topic of classifying our music resources, it would be as well to revisit the question of why at all we want to have a classified list of our possessions. Why not just keep a running list where we enter each thing as it comes, something like a “general ledger account” of day-to-day transactions?

I came upon a very interesting book on this question (yes, there are geeks who write whole books on as mundane an activity as classifying and arranging!) titled “Everything is Miscellaneous – The Power of the New Digital Disorder”, by David Weinberger (published 2007 in Times Books by Henry Holt & Company, New York, ISBN 978-0-8050-8043-0). Weinberger is described as a fellow of the Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for the Internet & Society, and an adviser and consultant for Fortune 500 companies, bestselling author, and a doctor of philosophy, so he should know a thing or two about the subject. His thesis is that the power of the computer and the Internet have placed huge databases at the call of a button, and searches on key words can be made in a fraction of  a second, so nothing really needs to be classified any more. In other words, everything can be entered in a single, massive list of all things.

The prime example Weinberger cites is, appositely, from the world of online music resources, the Apple iTunes music store, where the albums I referred to in the previous post, have been unpacked as tracks, enabling consumers to download just what they want, when they want, thereby giving Apple “more than 70 percent of the market”. The files need not be organized on your hard disk in any sort of structure, as the software allows you to search on key words any time (it will be faster, I suppose, if all the filenames and their embedded metadata (data about data!) are already indexed on every word, like Google does for the entire Internet). By giving keyword filters, we can narrow down the choice as much as we wish. Even filenames need not be intelligible (say Western-Bach-Concerto-Violin-No.1), but can just be a miscellaneous number, as the file’s embedded metadata would have information on which searches and selections can be made.

Another example Weinberger likes is the way digital cameras have generated millions and millions of pictures that are stored on the Web, viewed and exchanged and commented upon on the Web, and seldom printed out or put into albums. Here again, programs like Flickr.com have relieved the consumer or average user of the responsibility of classifying the pictures – as long as some metadata is embedded to indicate date, or maybe location, even the subject may not be all that relevant. What Weinberger says is that in order to “take full advantage of the digital opportunity – we have to get rid of the idea that there is a best way of organizing the world”.

On the other hand, if you tried this with physical objects – your collection of photographic prints or slides, or your books, or your CDs – you would end up with a big pile of stuff that you would have no way of using purposefully unless you did some sort of sorting – usually by subject, not colour or size! There actually was such a bookshop in Bangalore, where I live, which was more or less an icon – the owner could locate almost any book in his pile, but few others could. The store, sadly, closed a few years back, but another phenomenon has sprung up in many cities across the country – shops selling huge collections of used books imported by the carton (we are talking of shipping, not cardboard), sometimes even sold by weight! Most of these stores, I find, do group their books by subject matter (philosophy, gardening, health, sports, and so on).

I’m a bit old-fashioned (alas, I have not read Harry Potter, and I have already built up my collection of music on physical media), and I have to confess that even with my computer music files, I cannot help but organize them into subdirectories by composer, instrument, and form (concerto, symphony, etc.) at the very least. I still find the “album” concept convenient to record concerts, for instance – I find that the 1-hour format of most media (LPs mostly 40 to 50 minutes taking both the sides) is tailored to the average length of most performances. So even if I do manage to digitize all of them (or procure digital versions), I think I will still organize the files on my hard disk in a proper subdirectory structure, and I will probably follow a formal classification scheme like the Dewey Decimal to do so. And I will preserve the album cases and covers (especially the old LPs) for their erudite notes, beautiful graphics and illustrations, and the way they are evocative of places and events that computer files just cannot match! I’ll have occasion to describe my experiences with some of these computer classifying and cataloguing packages in future posts.

17 Classifying recorded music with Dewey

Actual music comes in various media – tapes, plates (LPs, for example), discs of various types (laserdiscs, audio CDs, DVDs), and so on. I don’t think anybody would think of mixing these objects with books on the shelves – they will collect dust, and be of different sizes and shapes from books, that will call for different handling. So the actual physical media tend to get stored in separate locations, probably under a shutter  or door of glass or other material.

My usual approach to such classification issues is to first visualize where I would put them normally. In this case, I’m pretty sure that I would like to stack the LPs separately, singles separately, the tapes separately (by size, but I have only micro-cassettes), then CDs (and DVDs and video discs with them, probably). Within each type, I’d probably arrange them in the standard Dewey Decimal order for 580 Music, just as if they were books (treatises, texts). All that remains is to give some mark or tag to show what type of recording media each item is. A simple way, obviously, is to prefix each number with a code symbolizing the type: LP (Long Play platter), EP (Extended Play), SP (Short Play), ACD (Audio CD), VCD (Video ditto), MC (Micro Cassette) or CC (Compact ditto), DVD, MP3, and whatever else you want. Of course, this will split a particular performer’s works among a number of locations or catalogues, so if we wish to keep them together, we could add the type of physical media (LP etc.) after the Dewey number and performer, so that a mechanical listing (by a computer, for instance) would list a particular performer’s ACDs, then LPs, and so on. 

For Western music, it is usually convenient to classify by genre and instrument (represented by the appropriate Dewey number) and composer, represented by the initial letters of the name, then the musical form (if desired), year, and serial number, if needed. Of course things can’t be always simple, and some “local” innovation may be called for to group symphonies together, or violin concertos together, and so on. For Hindustani classical, it’s usually the instrument that is the distinguishing facet, then the performer (not the composer), then year. Since each item may have pieces in a number of genres, it may not be so important to specify this in the classification number; the manufacturer’s name and the item’s serial number may be more useful to distinguish similar pieces. Enough letters would have to be carried for names to distinguish them clearly. For Western names, the surname is usually the entry point (Beethoven, rather than Ludwig, although the Bachs would need both the family name and the individual’s names). For Indian names, the surname is usually boring, because, like the old king who gave each of his three daughters half his kingdom, half the names are Kumar, half are Singh, and the remaining half are Khan (more or less!); I find it much better to enter with the first name, e,g, Ali Akbar, Allauddin, Rashid, and so on for the Khans. Thus an audio CD of a vocal recital by the Hindustani classical singer Rashid Khan would be ACD-789.9H’1’32 (for solo voice) followed by RAS 2011, and maybe the serial number. Or if I wanted a combined list for all media by the artist, 789.9H’1’32 RAS 2011 ACD, 789.9H’1’32 RAS 2010 DVD, and so on (this is a purely local innovation, not standard as per DDC!).  

Dewey declares under 580 that it “does not distinguish scores, texts, or recordings”, but goes on right thereafter (in the usual delightfully contradictory style we have come to love) to offer a choice of three methods of doing so.  One is to prefix a letter or other symbol, such as R for “Recording”, M for scores, etc. to the usual Dewey number for a treatise (which is the first method illustrated above). The understanding is that one goes to the appropriate storing place for each type, say the “Recordings Room” for R’s. In my institute’s library, they have put all the annual reports, project documents, and such like, in a separate room, and the catalogues show this location by the prefix D for Docs. Thus, Beethoven’s violin concerto could be classified as R- 787.2 (for Violin), followed by ’1’86 (for Concerto from 784.186), followed by composer, giving say R787.2’1’86 BEE 1964.  Of course, this would scatter Beethoven’s works all over the shelves, so to keep each person’s works in one place, we may have to alter the order in which these elements are entered: R-BEE-787.2’1’86 OIS (for Oistrakh, the violinist) 1964 (a rather non-standard way of achieving it!).

The second method provided by Dewey to segregate recordings is to add to the number for texts, the numbers following 78 in the range 780.26-780.269. As mentioned earlier, standard subdivisions of 780 Music are modified in places to cater to the special requirements of the subject. 780.26 is actually 78 with the standard subdivision -026, which in Table 1 is actually Law (but not recommended for developing numbers, preferring to use the main numbers 341-347). Under 780 Music, however, the standard subdivision -026 (actually, -26, as the zero is already provided by the base number 780) and its further subdivisions are used for a different purpose: “Texts, treatises on music scores and recordings”. Under this, then, 780.266 is “Sound recordings of music”. The number, when used normally, would refer to treatises about recordings (like the various guides to recorded music),  but Dewey is suggesting that we use the latter part of these numbers for the recordings themselves, or for the scores: 787.2’0266, recordings of violin music. This standard subdivision -026 can be used wherever an “add as instructed” from 780.1-780.9 is provided: thus, 787.2’1’86 (for Violin Concerto) followed by ’0266 (for Recordings), 787.2’1’86’0’266 BEE 1964 and so on, neat! Standard subdivision -0267 likewise referes to “Video recordings of music”.  (As far as can be made out, we have the option of adding suffixes through connectors -1- or -0- any number of times).

The third option suggested by Dewey is to class recordings under 789, and instructions at that number suggest using an alphabetic mark for composer, followed by the numbers after 78 in the range 780-788.

I must confess that I have not actually gotten round to classifying my recorded music under Dewey or other system. What I have is a list of these items (LPs, cassettes, CDs etc.) grouped by composer in the case of Western classical, and by performer in the case of Hindustani music. This is maintained physically in a loose-leaf ring binder of half the normal page size, so that pages can be added for new names or items as needed. The same information is also entered in a computer database (I use Lotus Agenda® about which I will talk later), which is based on DOS, and has never been ported to the Windows environment, alas! Since many of these albums (as they are technically called) combine say concertos and sonatas, or Hindustani khayal and thumri, and so on, there is not much scope for following strictly the Dewey order of musical forms; however, I broadly class vocal forms first, followed by the main instruments in the Dewey order. Mixed albums, of course, are located in front (or top). The lot are kept in various shoe boxes (ideal for CDs!) arranged alphabetically (by first name of artist for Hindustani, standard family name of composer for Western), and the LPs, of course, are stacked in a cupboard.   

16 Music in the Dewey world

Music, developed through the Dewey sections 780 to 789, is one of the subjects that ought to satisfy any enthusiast, except that it is let down by its euro-centrism, as in many other fields (Religion, for instance).

Let’s look at the wealth of detail and faceting that is provided. Sections 780 and 781 provide for general aspects. For starters, 780 Music can be related to any other subject through the expedient of tagging on any three-digit number (the Section heads, in other words) through the connector -0-, yielding a fulsome range 780.0001 – 780.0999.  One is tempted to extend it beyond the prescribed 3-digit limit by adding further digits from the schedules, and why not standard subdivisions too!

If this were not enough, 780 is itself developed through standard subdivisions  by 780.1-780.9, which have a number of specialized modifications of the standard concepts like 780.26, “Texts, treatises on music scores and recordings” rather than -026 Law in the standard subdivisions (Table 1). In developing 780.9 Historical, geographic, persons treatment, there is provision for historical periods which appear tailored mainly to western music, and only one entry (I am talking from DDC 22) of an actual geographical region, 780.94 Music of Europe. I suppose we should take the diplomatic liberty of assuming that numbers like 780.95, 780.96 and so on are not precluded, or indeed 780.954 for South Asia or 760.951 for East Asia and so on.

The numbers under section 781, that is 781.1 to 781.8 (there appears to be no 781.9), have a number of general topics, termed “General principles and musical forms”, such as 781.1 Basic principles, 781.2 Elements of music, 781.3 Composition, and so on to 781.8 Musical forms. For instance, 781.26 Tonal systems, which provides among other numbers, 781.264 Other modes, including Indian ragas (my area of interest). The interesting thing is that an “Add as instructed” provision is attached to the entire range 781.2 to 781.8, which provides for adding on standard subdivisions as modified under 780.1-780.9, as well as “General principles” from the range 781.1-781.7 using connector 1 (this is a bit circular!). Thus, “adding from” 781.43 Performance techniques, we can form 781.26’1’43 Performance techniques for tonal systems (inexplicably, the “add” instruction is not provided for 781.264 Other modes, including Indian ragas, but I think we should stretch it a bit anyway since it is provided for the numbers 781.263 Medieval church works and 781.265 Macrotonality – dare we think the unthinkable, that Dewey has a mistake?).

Another productive number is 781.6 Traditions of music, which provides for a diversity of cultures and styles: folk, pop (which is called, properly, Popular music), country, and even 781.68 Western art (i.e. classical) music, and 781.69 Nonwestern art music. The numbers, in the range 781.63-781.69 Other traditions of music, have “add” instructions:  standard subdivision as modified under 780.1-780.9, historical periods, etc. connected through a 0, and special subjects (facets) connected through a 1, taken from General principles under 781.1-781.5, and stylistic influences from 781.62-781.69. There ia also a cryptic suggestion that one should not add numbers using connectors 0 or 1 more than twice, immediately countermanded by a suggestion in parentheses that you can add as many times as you desire. Such are the joys of the Dewey world!

Things get really interesting when we cross over from the general principles and move to the numbers 782 to 788, which cover various ways of producing music, starting with the human voice: 782 Vocal music, 783 Music for single voices, and then 784 to 788, Instruments and ensembles classed by type (keyboard, percussion, string, wind, and so on). Most of these are tagged with an “Add as instructed under 784-788”, enabling us to attach numbers from standard subdivisions through connector 0 (you guessed it, as modified in 780.1-780.9!), and general principles, musical forms etc. through connector 1 from the range 781.1-781.7 or 784.18-784.19 (this is really specific; they could have given a more liberal selection!). Again there is the cryptic instruction that you can do this only twice, or any number of times.

The last section after the different types of instruments is 789 Composers and traditions of music, except that the whole section is placed in brackets and the suggestion is given to “prefer” 780-788. Here is where the rub lies, as the very last number in the whole range, 789.9, refers to “Non-western art music”; and the problem starts really if we have different tradition that we would like to group separately.

As long as we have only western music to deal with, 780-788 is more than sufficient, it is a surfeit. But if we want to develop any other traditions separately, then a mighty effort is required to cobble together parts of numbers from the other ranges, somewhat like the strange insect (stuck together from various species) that those clever boys asked Darwin to identify (he is supposed to have asked them “Did it hum when you caught it, boys?” and when they confirmed that it did, he pronounced it a Hum Bug). The problem starts with tagging the traditions: suppose I want to have two, the north Indian classical (Hindustani) tradition and the south Indian (Karnatik) tradition, I can do it by adding geographical facet numbers, thus 789.9’00954 for Hindustani and 789.9’009548 for Karnatik (from Table 2). So far so good, but then the problem is that the “add as instructed” note provided for the range 789.3-789.9 has the limitation that I can add other facets (through connector 01) like general principles, stylistic influences, musical forms, and (through connector 1) voices and instruments, but only to the base number like 789.9, and not to the geographical facet  789.9’00954 or 789.9’009548 or whatever. What can be added to the geographical facet numbers (-3 to -9 in Table 2 ) are other facets introduced by the connector -0- from Table 1 Standard subdivisions, which are pretty much defined already. There is a provision  for developing facets specific to a subject through the connector -04 Special topics, which could have been utilized to add on all the music-specific facets like styles, instruments, and so on, but Dewey prescribes that -04 subdivisions should come first, much before geographical facets under -09; this would have to be countermanded.

The natural pattern of arranging books on music with many traditions like Hindustani (which we will call H) and Karnatik (K) and others like Western (W), would be to group each tradition separately. Under each, say H tradition, we would like to put books on general principles first, then books on styles or genres, then books dealing with each type of instrument, including performers (or even composers) specialised in each (biographies, memoirs, discographies, etc.), and so on. Then to the next major tradition (say, K), and likewise further on. If we try this under 789.9, we get stuck after the geographical facet, and cannot revert back to the music facets. We would have to put the music facet first, then the geographical facet, which would make no sense on the shelves (imagine composers in formal dress rubbing shoulders with pundits in silken pajamas!). I resolve this impasse by cheating: instead of geographical faceting, I represent each tradition by a letter, thus 789.9H and 789.9K, then add the music facets through connectors 0 or 1 or whatever is provided in the Dewey schedules. This is neither standardized nor consistent with the rest of the schedules (there would be clashes if the same letter were appropriate for more than one tradition), and we should ask Dewey to provide a robust connecter (maybe -04-) to connect to the technical facets after the geographical tag (Dewey apparently recognizes only two traditions: western classical 789.8, and non-western classical 789.9!). 

Similarly, one is stumped by the relative lack of choice of non-western instruments, if we wish to group books (or recordings) by instrument. For example, the Indian tradition has a number of different instruments that could go under 787.82 Round-backed (plectral) lute family: sitar, surbahar, sarod, veena, rudraveena, and other local variants. They would all be jumbled together since there are no specific numbers. Once again, I cheat by inserting an alphabetic code of 5 or 6 letters in the number: 787.82sitar,,,,, 787.82sarod..., 787.82rudra... etc. Or, since I separate the traditions, 789.9H'1'782sitar...., 789.9H'1'782sarod.... 789.9K'1'782veena.... and so on. Further numbers can be added through connectors 01 or 1, using the "add as instructed under 789.3-789.9" provision, to tag on even finer subdivisions of topics, like performances, or techniques, or history, and so on. 

15 Meeting Forestry 634.9 in the field!

Speaking of old traditional foresters, one of my memorable moments was a visit to the Grey Towers National Historic Site in Milford, PA (www.fs.fed.us/gt, greytowers@fs.fed.us) a couple of years back. This was the home, of course, of America’s founder forester Gifford Pinchot, built by his father James Pinchot in 1886 (according to the brochure).  Two things make this especially close to my heart: one, that Pinchot had a special regard for Dietrich Brandis, who set up Indian forestry during the latter part of the 19^th century, and considered him a teacher. In fact, the nice thing about being the Director-General of the forest ministry in New Delhi is that a bank of crusty old colonial foresters is staring over your shoulder, and Brandis leads the lot (he was Inspector General of Forests from 1864, which makes 2014 the 150^th anniversary).

In the Dewey context, what was nice in this visit was to meet our friend, DDC 634.9, in Pinchot’s library of old books. Of course, I don’t expect many of his volumes to go into 333.75 under the social sciences! I am posting two pictures, one of the library shelf, and another of the grounds. 

The second sentimental link is that Pinchot got into trouble over some frank remarks on the opening up of some Alaskan coal blocks in pristine forest areas, which ended up in an acrimonious fight with the government and Pinchot’s resignation. Diversion of forest areas, especially for coal mining, was the most contentious difficult part of the DG Forests’s responsibilities during my term (2009 to 2012) at the ministry in Delhi; it did not come to resigning in a storm, but there were moments when the balance between the bureaucracy and the political masters was tested.  Later on, Pinchot got his satisfaction by running for the Governor’s post and winning, but of course this is not possible for all civil servants (although more and more retired officials are stepping into the political arena, which may or may not be a sign of Indian democracy maturing).

14 More Forestry numbers

It is seen that forestry topics can be accommodated under 634.9 Forestry as well as under 333.75 Forest lands. This division between the mother-lode under agricultural technology and the social sciences in fact mirrors what is happening to the field of forestry itself: all the shiny new book spines, like bright young research students, will flock to the social science cabinets under 333.7, leaving the old dusty tomes to moulder in 634.9 in the company of doddering old colonials and others of their ilk. Probably this is one reason why 634.9 seems to have been abandoned by the folks at Dewey, whereas other areas are constantly being developed and modified.

ODC had a separate primary number 6 which encompassed Forest management, Business economics of forestry, and Administration and organization of forest enterprises. This sometimes looks like overkill, because there are just too many detailed subject headings, apart from further choices under 7 Marketing of forest products, etc., and 8 Forest products and their utilization, 9 Forests and forestry from the national point of view, Social economics of forestry (what we refer to in DDC 333.75).. Dewey seems in general to be more circumspect in introducing subject headings, preferring entry numbers to cover a well defined range of ideas, leaving it to standard subdivisions for finer division.

Thus, other standard DDC subdivisions can be used as usual, for instance Forest terminology can be put under 634.9’014 using “standard subdivision” -014, Forest law can be put under -02 (i.e., 634.9’02, though this seems to be “optional”, Dewey preferring the main number 340. The choice is between putting all the forestry books in one location, or distributing them across the whole collection.  Obviously, a professional would prefer to collect the subject matter volumes in one compact location. Other useful standard subdivision suffixes are -07 Study and teaching, which can accommodate research methodology and institutions (though not the results of research, which have to go under the appropriate subject head), and of course -09 Historical and geographical treatment.

There is no separate number for policy in DDC, we have to make do with 634.9 itself with geographical subdivisions -09, or 333.75, with its special subdivisions. Or maybe stretching it, we could add a standard subdivision -01 Philosophy and theory, whereas ODC has a choice of subdivisions under primary class 9 or using “auxiliary numbers” -09 (which seems to parallel the main number 9 itself!). ODC seems to have a number of very similar subject headings, which makes it difficult to standardise.

My office library used the device of classing forestry under DDC 634.9, and then subdividing by ODC, but after trying this for some time, I was just not comfortable with this sort of duality. I finally decided to switch over completely to DDC, forcing me to go through some heroics to get specific topic headings using the Standard Subdivisions.

In the course of my web browsing, I came upon this resource for classification of forestry subjects: the IUFRO Global Forestry Information Service GFIS, with the following id:

www.iufro-gfis.net/handbook/ (accessed on 26 November 2004 (!). There is an Appendix 3-1 that gives a breakdown of forestry by topic headings grouped by subject, e.g. Silviculture, then Physiology and Genetics, Forest Operations, Inventory Growth Yield etc., and so on. There is a GFIS “Classification Scheme” that gives the “Forest Decimal Classification” (FDC) that generally mirrors the Oxford classification (ODC), with a proviso that this will later be “supplemented or replaced by other schemes” such as Dewey. Most interesting for Dewey fans, there is a section giving DDC equivalents for a selection of FDC numbers. The DDC numbers suggested are scattered over a wide range of locations: e.g., 307 for Rural development, 320 for Forest Policy, 330 for General forest economics, Deforestation goes off to 363, and and so on; this will be most unsettling for forest professionals, unless the idea is to prefix a 634.9 or a 333.75 in front (which is not a permitted improvisation in Dewey, although concatenation of numbers using the colon : is available in the Universal, UDC).

13 Building the Dewey Forest by numbers!

As I said in the last post, DDC is rather sparse in its development of 634.9, Forestry. As against Oxford Decimal’s 60 pages of numbers and subject headings, DDC 20 has hardly four. The main subheadings are: 634.92 Forest management, which has sub-headings for  Regulation and for Mensuration as well; 634.93 Access and safety features; 634.95 Silviculture (includes Afforestation, Breeding, etc.); 634.96 Injuries, diseases, pests; 634.97 Kinds of trees; 634.98 Forest exploitation and products; 634.99 Agroforestry etc. Compared with the development of 630 to 633, Agriculture, this is very limiting. Indeed one wishes they had provided for development of Forestry on the same lines by ‘adding numbers following 63 in 630-633’ as is done in many other places in the DDC. Even the subject immediately preceding 634.9, Orchards and fruits (634 to 634.8), has more possibilities for systematic development. As most of the headings have the provision to add the posterior (end) digits numbers from diverse ranges under Agriculture. Rather grudgingly, 634.9 Forestry does have a couple of entries with an “add” instruction from the Agriculture range: there is a provision of adding to the number 634.96 Injuries, diseases, pests from the appropriate range under 632, and under 634.97 Kinds of trees, topics from ranges in Forestry itself.

Mapping numbers from ODC (the most detailed systematic development for Forestry), we obviously have to fall back on different devices to create subject numbers. ODC group 1, for example, has a series of headings for “Factors of the environment, Biology”. One obvious way of catering to these subjects would be a liberal use of the “standard subdivision” with connector -015-, which allows attachment of all the Science numbers (500-599). This can cover application of climate science, soil science, physics, geology, chemistry, zoology, botany, ecology, and so on. Indeed there is already a provision under 634.97 Kinds of trees to add the numbers following 583 for Dicotyledons, or following 584 for Monocots. The suffix -015 allows adding numbers from any heading in the range 500 to 599!

Another suggestive entry is 634.90688 Management of distribution (Marketing). This obviously uses “standard subdivision” connector -068, which actually provides a range --     0681 to -0688 covering management heads parallel to those under 658. Thus, -0681 Financial management mirrors 658.1 Organization and finance, -0682 Plant management mirrors 658.2 Plant management and so on;  -0688 Management of marketing thus parallels 658.8. One wonders why this is not extended throughout the range, so that subheadings under 658.x can also be appended. Well, sometimes I do cheat and do this to reach specific headings; consider this my local extension of -068x!  

Forest economics seems to present some special problems, because different choices can be made. For a start, if we want to stick with 634.9, we could create a number with standard subdivision -0681, maybe even extending it further to subtopics under 658.1 as suggested above. Of course, one may like to put it under 634.92 Forest management, thus 634.92’0681; Dewey (20) recommends putting “comprehensive works on management in forestry in 634.9068”. Another possibility, however, is a totally different number in Economics, such as under 338 Production economics (specifically, 338.1749 Products of forestry) or 333.7 Natural resources, specifically 333.75 Forest lands. The Notes in Dewey 20 explain that 333.75 is “primarily concerned with forest land and uncut timber as present and future resources”, whereas 338 numbers are “primarily concerned with cut timber as a product to be sold”. The tendency seems to be to put discussions on forest resources in general in 333.75, whereas timber (lumber, logs, and other products) would go under 338. This of course will make the forester mad and stomp his boots, so it may be better for everyone’s sanity to put forest products under 634.9 with or without the suffix -068x, keeping 333.75 and its subdivisions for books of forest land policy, such as the discussions on how much forest is required, on how to manage with the community, etc. The question remains, where would standard books on “forest economics” go? My own hunch is that older texts, which look at it mainly from the business management point of view (like the classic Duerr), are best put under 634.9’068,  while 333.75 and subdivisions are suitable for more recent ones, which deal with social and political (economy) issues, including indigenous peoples’ rights, community management, forest conservation policy and strategy, incentives for conservation, and so on. In fact the ‘centered entry’ >15-17 under 333.7-333.9 introduces “Management and control”, with the instruction “Class here citizen participation, planning, policy”, which is appropriate for things like joint forest management (JFM). There is regrettably no separate number for JFM or participatory management; below >15-17 are three subheadings, 15 Development, 16 Conservation and protection, 17 Control of usage. It is anybody’s choice which of these three is best suited to house JFM: I tend to use 153 Reclamation, rehabilitation, restoration, thus giving the number for JFM 333.75’153.  

Another bugbear (for me) has been classifying agro-forestry, social forestry, forestry projects, etc.: they could go under 634.99, but what a jumble! I finally improvised a number-cum-alphabetical system to separate different projects and geographical jurisdictions. Of course, let me also make a note that we have not even started to consider other products technology numbers, such as 676 Pulp & paper technology, 674 Lumber processing, wood products, cork,  684.08 Woodworking (and home workshops, i.e. DIY stuff), 691.1 Timber under 691 Building materials, 694 Wood construction and carpentry, and other products groups that will have an interest for professional foresters.

12 Lost in the Dewey woods: Forestry 634.9

As a forestry professional (recently retired!), I’ve naturally collected a lot of books and reports pertaining to Forestry and Forest Products, in their various manifestations. My struggles with classifying these documents started with the Oxford Decimal Classification (ODC) system, which was my first introduction to this delectable pastime!

I’ve finally relocated my copy of the ODC, from one of the hundred boxes that I brought back from New Delhi to Bangalore on retiring, so let me share something about this classification system just for Forestry. Its original version was devised in large part by Swiss forester Philipp Flury, a member of the Bibliographical Committee of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO) by 1933, and assigned the decimal notation 634.9F to distinguish it from the head 634.9 in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). One of the Chairmen of the Committee was Prof. R.S.Troup (Oxford), which establishes a strong Indian connection, Troup being one of the best known British Indian foresters and author of many volumes on Indian Silviculture from the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. A completely revised version of the ODC was prepared by a post-war Committee, largely by P.G.Beak, Assistant Director of the Bureau, and presented by Ford Robertson, Director of the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau, Oxford in 1948, and after discussions, was adopted in the IUFRO Congress in Rome in September 1953.

The ODC groups the field of Forestry into ten broad classes, starting with 0, for "General works on forests, forestry and the utilisation of forest products", through 1 (Factors of the environment, Biology), 2 (Silviculture), 3 (Work Science, harvesting), 4 (Forest injuries and protection), 5 (Forest mensuration), 6 (Forest management), 7 (Marketing, economics of forest transport and wood industries), 8 (Forest products and their utilisation), and 9  (Forests and forestry from the national point of view, social economics of forestry). The application of sciences like genetics, botany and ecology are covered under 1.

An interesting aspect is that the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification), the European version of the DDC, now uses 630 for Forestry (rather than Dewey’s 634.9, which fits between 634 Horticulture and 635 Gardening), and recommends the use of ODC numbers (with an interpolated asterisk) to form class numbers: thus, 630*1 for "Environmental factors, forest biology", 630*2 for "Silviculture", and so on. (My source for UDC numbers was the International Medium Edition, FID publication no.571, BS 1000M: Part 1: 1985). This combination of two systems provided fairly detailed heads, but there were confusions still, especially for general works on forest economics and history, which are somewhat repetitious in the ODC.

An interesting feature of UDC is the provision for making composite numbers from two different numbers or concepts, using the colon (:) as the connector or concatenator. This is a neat device that enables you to create new categories to your heart’s content. Thus if you want to make a new heading for the effect of climate on forests, you can just take the numbers for Forestry  and for Climate, and join them with the colon. I found this especially useful in joining Forest Management to Community Participation for documents on Joint Forest Management (JFM), thus 630*6:364.462 – the first number is UDC 630 with ODC 6 for “Forest management”, the latter number UDC 364.462 referring to “Participation of the people in decision-making. Democratization. Grass-roots democracy”, which fits exactly. Instead of 630*6, we could use 630*9, the 9 from ODC representing “Forests and forestry from the national point of view. Social economics of forestry”. There’s no separate category for JFM in the UDC or the DDC, as it is something that has developed only in the last two decades. 

The possible downside of this creative license is that each person can form their own new categories, and standardisation is lost. Dewey doesn’t allow this freedom. Any synthesis of numbers from different parts of the DDC has to be done only where expressly permitted, and then as per the instructions provided. Yes, there is one provision in the Standard Subdivisions, applicable to more or less any number from 000 to 999, which lets you relate the subject to to any scientific aspect by adding 01 as a connector, followed by the number from the Sciences (510 to 590). Thus, "Application of the principles of plant genetics to forestry" 634.9’0158115, from 634.9 Forestry and 581.15 Genetics, under the number 581 Botany (we are talking about DDC 20 here; the corresponding number in DDC 22 would be 581.3, Genetics and evolution, under 581 Specific topics in natural history of plants). Unfortunately this nifty trick isn’t provided for with subjects under Technology (600’s), as 016… introduces "Indexes", not application of 600 subject heads; and 019 is "Psychological principles", not the subject in relation to "Geography and travel"!

There are a few numbers to which the entire gamut of subject headings 001 to 999 can be added, such as 338 Production economics, which allows any subject to be related thus.  Also, the Standard Subdivisions do provide a general rule for appending reference to "Place" from Table 2 to any subject number, with the connector ’09: ’094 is Europe, ’095 Asia and so forth (the apostrophe is just a mark to group digits, and need not be shown in actual numbers). This is probably the most widely used mode of subdivision of a topic, and neatly groups documents by continent and country. In some numbers, the 9 need not even be added, as it is already provided in the main number: for instance, Standard Subdivision ’060’3-9, for Organizations in different countries, leaves out the connecting 9, thus 634.9’0604 Forestry organisations in Europe, and so on.

All such aids are welcome, for the DDC 634.9 Forestry is woefully underpopulated compared to ODC. Further, forestry subjects are scattered between 634.9 (forestry), 639.9 (biodiversity conservation), and 333.75 (forest lands), not to mention "forest ecology" under 577.3 (DDC 22). I will present some of the compound numbers I use to gerrymander forestry topics into the DDC mode in the next section.