Eric (and any others who may wonder about stuff like this) -->
Let me see if I can answer your question ...
Just as a clarification, the part of the call numbers with which you are
concerned is not the "classification" number at all, but rather, the Cutter
number. Classification numbers must be assigned intellectually, based on
the subject content of the work being cataloged. Cutter numbers, on the
other hand, are simply for "housekeeping" --> they are devices used to
arrange materials on the same subject in some orderly fashion, usually in
alphabetical order by the author or main entry. In some cases, particularly
for primary sources such as the official series of reporters in your
example, the preferred arrangement will be chronological.
The most recent version of the KF schedule (with adds & changes through
early 1993) has LC currently arranging your reporters this way:
Cal. KFC45.A2 | Cal.App. KFC48.A2
Cal.2d- KFC45.A22 | Cal.App.2d- KFC48.A212
KFC45.A22 3d | KFC48.A212 3d
KFC45.A22 4th | KFC48.A212 4th
(I am presuming that the 3d and 4th series designations are added as shown,
as part of the voluming, but this is not explicit in the KF schedule)
You may note that in one case LC has used a "2" to expand the Cutter,
and in the other a "12" has been used. In either case, the correct order
has been maintained, i.e., the 2d series follows the 1st, the 3d comes
after the 2d, and so on.
Now, just to muddy the waters a bit, I should let you know that when the
KF schedule was first published, in 1969, it specified that your reporters
should go in KFC45 and KFC48, but there was no guidance on Cuttering. This
came later, in a separate list of LC Classification Additions and Changes.
Hence, most catalogers, in 1969, had to rely on their experience and
judgment to guess how to fill out the call numbers.
As a practical matter, once hundreds of volumes (and sometimes added
copies of these) have been labelled with a certain Cutter number, many
libraries cannot afford the luxury (staff time and expense) to re-label
them, particularly if the "old" Cutter number does not cause the titles and
volumes to be illogically arranged.
It is a question of 1) adhering to basic principles, and 2) setting
priorities. If you have followed the "spirit" of the law (i.e., your
official series are sequential 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, followed by current
unofficial series, and then by abridged selected or defunct publications,
like "California Decisions" or "California Unreported Cases"), well then,
how does it serve your patrons better to re-label a lot of volumes in
order to conform to LC or to be consistent with Cutter numbers used in
a different classification number? In regard to priorities, it is generally
more important that cataloging staff get new materials out to the shelf
quickly, or classify works which had never been classed before, or work on
other problems. (For example, we find much more problematic the situation
with some state statutes or administrative codes, where we used to label the
volumes with vol. numbers, but now replacement vols. are issued with only
section numbers -- we have done a good deal of re-labelling on these.)
I hope this helps a little. These are my own interpretations/opinions,
and should not be construed to represent an official response from any
organization or institution with which I may be affiliated. :-)
____________________________________________________________________
Alva T. Stone
Law Library e-mail: atstone@mailer.fsu.edu
Florida State University fax: 904-644-5216
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1043 tel: 904-644-2881
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST