









































64  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

PAPERS

Reclassification for the Chinese 
Theological Collection
Josella Chan, Melbourne School of Theology

ABSTR AC T: John Searle Library has undertaken a reclassification of 
the Chinese Theological Collection belonging to Melbourne School 
of Theology.  It was found that Pettee Classification did not support 
cataloging sufficiently due to not being updated in decades.  Reclas-
sification of the collection was necessary.  This paper discusses the 
decision-making process and how the new classification scheme for 
the collection was chosen. It describes the implementation of the 
reclassification project and reviews the outcomes. 

It was decided to reclassify the collection to Library of Congress 
Classification. This resulted in improving information retrieval, 
increasing collection discoverability and visibility, and reducing staff 
time devoted to cataloguing and reference service. An interactive 
online LCC training module was developed to educate users.  As a 
result, users were engaged and empowered to discover the collec-
tion effectively. 

In conclusion, classification is not merely for shelving and 
retrieving items. It is the foundation of knowledge organization 
and also a core business to support many aspects of library service. 
Information professionals should rethink and reposition classifica-
tion and transform it to a value-added service for the library.

INTRODUCTION

The John Searle Library in Melbourne School of Theology (MST) 
houses the Chinese Theological Collection (MSTC) for the use of 
Chinese students, alumni, faculty, and staff. The collections contain 
more than 18,000 items, including general collection, reference 
collection, and AV collection. 

When MST, MSTC, and Eastern College moved their collections 
into the John Searle Library, the library found itself with two differ-
ent classifications, Pettee Classification and Dewey Decimal Clas-
sification. Currently, MST English collections are using the Pettee 



Papers  65

Classification scheme, and the Eastern collection is using the Dewey 
Classification Scheme. 

The Chinese Department found that Pettee Classification might 
not accommodate new items that deal with current theological 
concepts and subjects. They recommended that the bilingual librar-
ian investigate the reclassification of the entire Chinese Theological 
Collection.

After investigation and discussion, the librarian proposed to 
reclassify the entire Chinese collection to Library of Congress Clas-
sification and submitted an implementation plan.  The developed 
proposal was approved in October 2020. The project was imple-
mented by the librarian in November 2020.  Completion of this proj-
ect is expected in 2021. 

This paper discusses the decision to reclassify and the choice 
of classification scheme for a Chinese theological collection in a 
theological library. It also will describe the project implementation, 
review the results, and outline what lessons we have learned from 
this project. 

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION 
SCHEMES?

Some issues affect library users’ ability to find information resources 
in the library.  Firstly, multiple copies of the same title from differ-
ent colleges are shelved in different locations. Secondly, the library 
users are confused with having to interpret different classification 
schemes. 

Other issues affect the library cataloguing and staff time. First, 
the Pettee classification is no longer updated and has not been devel-
oped since 1966.  Newly acquired items with current theological 
concepts may not find a suitable classification location for the associ-
ated content. Secondly, Pettee classification is rarely used in Chinese 
theological libraries. Most Chinese theological libraries either use the 
Library of Congress Classification or Dewey Decimal Classification. 
Therefore, the librarian became the sole user of Pettee and needed 
to use more of her staff time to catalogue and process new items. As 
a result, the librarian investigated the options of reclassification and 
made recommendation for the change.



66  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

CHOICE OF CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

1. Research of Best Practices and Professional Guidelines
The American Library Association has recommended that if a library 
is using a local system or a classification scheme that is not main-
tained and updated, it should consider aligning the collection with 
a system that is maintained (ALA 2020). The Pettee classification 
scheme was developed by Julie Pettee for theological libraries in the 
early 20th century (Eisenhart 1960; Butler 2013), and has not been 
updated since 1966. 

Reclassification of the John Searle Library was considered 
because the existing system was not workable and could not support 
the librarian to carry out classification tasks efficiently (Harvey and 
Hider 2004). The library needed to change to a new classification for 
its collection.

It led to the question of which classification scheme should be 
used to most benefit the library’s users, maximize the productivity 
of library staff, and improve the library operation and workflow. 

2. Literature Review: Dewey or Library of Congress?
It is well known that Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is the most 
popular scheme overall, being used in public and school libraries; 
whereas Library of Congress Classification (LCC) is commonly used 
in academic libraries in the US (ALA 2020; Butler 2013). 

Since the rise of LCC in the mid-1950s, many academic libraries 
made the switch from DDC to LCC and have reclassified their collec-
tions (Steele and Foote 2011).  Reclassification was much discussed 
in the professional literature during the mid-1950s through 1970s, 
and the focus usually was on the choice between Dewey and Library 
of Congress (Steele and Foote 2011). 

2.1) The decline of using DDC in academic libraries in the US
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) has been declining in 
US-based academic libraries for over six decades, from 80% 
to 13.5% (Lund and Agbaji. 2018). There are serval reasons 
that academic libraries prefer to use Library of Congress 
Classification (LCC):
• LCC uses alphanumeric notation which provides greater 

flexibility than DDC’s numeric-only scheme. It was 



Papers  67

designed to offer a broader range of classes for the larger 
collections as well as breadth and depth for collection 
development. 

• DDC has a limited number of classes that cannot capture 
all the categories represented in modern, large-scale 
library collections. A larger collection using DDC must 
be compacted into a very small range of less specific call 
numbers.

• DDC lacks breadth of classifying for non-Christian reli-
gions and non-white cultures (Higgins 2016). 

• The proper placements of certain subjects have been ques-
tioned, e.g. Psychology as a subdivision under Philosophy 
(100s) (Chan 2007; Chan and Salaba 2015). 

• Related disciplines are often separated, e.g. 300 (Social 
Sciences) from (900 (Geography and History); and 400 
(Languages) from 800 (Literature) (Chan 2007; Chan and 
Salaba 2015).

• The capacity for numerical expansion is infinite, but it 
also results in lengthy numbers for specific subjects (Chan 
2007; Chan and Salaba 2015). The long call numbers have 
been found inconvenient.

• Reclassification and partial collection relocation are often 
required when the new edition released (Gangu and Rao 
2002).

• Theological library staff found it difficult to use DDC for 
the theological collection a century ago (Walker and Cope-
land. 2009). Pettee believed that DDC was not workable 
for theological libraries; as a result, she developed Pettee 
Classification when LCC was developing in early 1900s 
(Walker and Copeland. 2009; ACL 2017). 

• Staff preference due to cost, size of collection, special-
ties of staff, mere exposure effect (employees prefer the 
system they currently use), or those who have been long-
exposed to DDC tend to prefer it to LCC or vice versa (Lund 
and Agbaji. 2018).

2.2 LCC is widely used in the American and Chinese theological 
libraries

Although DDC is commonly used in Australian theological 
libraries, LCC is widely used in American theological librar-



68  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

ies (Butler 2013).  Eisenhart (1960) also found that LCC was 
suitable to use for theological libraries. Most Chinese theo-
logical libraries in Hong Kong and Taiwan also use LCC for 
their collections.

There are some reasons that these academic libraries use 
LCC. These include:
• LCC provides main classes from A to Z, multiple subclasses, 

and divisions (Chan 2007; Chan and Salaba 2015)
• LCC call numbers are brief and are easily understood for 

shelving purposes (Chan 2007; Chan and Salaba 2015)
• The classification of regions has a wide spectrum of 

subclasses and divisions for the denominational source 
of religion materials, such as denominational history, both 
general and national, creeds and catechism, and liturgy 
(Eisenhart 1960).

• Atla supports the ongoing development of LCC in religion.
• Library of Congress provides quarterly updates to its theo-

logical classification and subject headings—for exam-
ple, New and Changed LC Classification Numbers from 
November 2019 to February 2020 Lists, and New and 
Changed LC Subject Headings and Other Terms. 

• Librarians can manage electronic resources seamlessly 
with the provision of LCC from Atla Religion and Philoso-
phy database and e-book collection.

2.3 Australian Context: Classification schemes used in Australian 
theological libraries

In 2020, ANZTLA compiled statistics from data volun-
tarily provided by their member libraries (Stevens 2021). The 
survey revealed that DDC was commonly used in Australian 
theological libraries. This prompts the question as to why 
they prefer DDC over LCC. It is suspected that the library 
collection size and the classification used are correlated.

There were 36 respondents of the 60 institutional 
members.  The report showed that 61% of library members 
have collection size less than 50,000 items, followed by 9% 
with less than 100,000 items, 8% with more than 100,000 
items, and 22% did not provide their data (Figure 1). 

This statistical report included inaccurate information 
that J. W. Searle Library currently uses Pettee/Dewey.  After 



Papers  69

amendment, the report showed that 26 libraries used DDC 
(72%), followed by four libraries with LCC (11%), four librar-
ies with Pettee (11%), one library with Pettee/Dewey (3%) and 
one library with Bonish (3%) (Figure 2).

FIGURE 1: Collection size in 36 Australian Theological libraries

FIGURE 2: Classification schemes used in 36 Australian Theological 
Libraries



70  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

As seen in Figure 3, it found that 64% of Australian theo-
logical libraries with smaller collection size (less than 50,000 
items) used DDC in 25 responses, and 12% of them used LCC. 
One library with medium collection size (55,234 items) used 
Dewey, and another library with 69,633 items used Bonish. 
Three libraries with large collection size (more than 100,000 
items) used different classification systems: one large library 
used DDC, another one used Pettee, and our library had 
Pettee/Dewey.

These findings suggested that the Australian theological 
libraries which used DDC have smaller collections. Their 
collection may cover subjects in general and not too specific; 
so DDC may suffice to accommodate their needs. Interest-
ingly, four libraries with smaller collection use LCC. It seems 
that LCC is not only suitable for larger academic libraries, but 
also for the smaller special libraries. 

FIGURE 3: Library size vs Classification scheme in 25 Australian 
Theological Libraries

3. Reclassification: Australian examples
Reclassification of the library collections has occurred in Australia. 
Harvey and Hider (2004) recorded the reclassification of library 
collections carried out in academic and special libraries. 



Papers  71

• In early 1970s, University of Queensland moved from 
DDC to LCC; one factor was that more LCC classification 
numbers were at the time available from centralized cata-
loguing sources.

• University of Tasmania moved from BC to LCC; reasons 
were lack of updating the scheme and cost benefits of 
using standard classification.

• Griffith University moved from DDC to LCC.
• Australian Defence Force Academy Library in Canberra; 

one of the reasons: LCC better accommodates military, 
scientific, and technical materials. (Harvey and Hider 
2004)

4. Best Classification Scheme?
All classifications are unsatisfactory in some way or another. Which 
classification scheme will work better for our library? Harvey and 
Hider (2004) provided the criteria to evaluate a classification scheme. 
These include:

• Is the scheme inclusive within its defined area, and is it 
comprehensive?

• Is the scheme systematic – is its structure logical and under-
standable?

• Is the scheme flexible and expandable – can it incorporate new 
subjects without disrupting its structure?

• Does the scheme’s notation meet the criteria of uniqueness, 
simplicity, brevity, and hospitality?

• Is the scheme current and regularly updated? Is there an effi-
cient mechanism for hospitality? Strong institutional support, 
maintenance, and updates are important.

• Is the terminology used in the scheme clear, unambiguous, and 
consistently applied? 

• Does the scheme contain bias – can it be applied in a culturally, 
politically, or religiously neutral way? (Harvey and Hider 2004)

They further explained that the concepts of enumeration, hier-
archy, and facet influenced the classification and shelf location. 
Enumerative schemes listed the subjects, loosely grouping related 
subject together. Faceted schemes started from a different basis, with 
subjects broken down into single concepts and a notation assigned 
to each item (Harvey 2004). DDC is enumerative, pure notation (only 



72  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

one type of symbol is used), and mnemonic. It is commonly used in 
general collections in libraries, such as public or school libraries. LCC 
has a mixed notation with facets and enumeration, the characteris-
tics of uniqueness, simplicity, brevity, and hospitality. It is generally 
used in academic or college libraries.

How do these characteristics affect our library collections? An 
investigation was carried out. It found the problem that, for example, 
the call number 248.4 CHA had 35 results, consisting of 25 unique 
titles and 10 duplicates on the library management system. We found 
that the same call number could be repeatedly assigned to differ-
ent titles. These items were reclassified with an LCC call number. In 
Figure 4, it is clearly shown that LCC has 25 unique call numbers to 
specify each item; whereas DDC assigned the same call number to 
generally classify the subjects and items.

FIGURE 4: An example of reclassification of DDC call number



Papers  73

This finding suggested the shortcoming with the DDC system 
that it does not support the research community and research 
support service. Firstly, the user community needs to find informa-
tion, drill down to the specific information, and carry out research 
tasks effectively and efficiently. Subsequently, they more often ask 
staff for reference assistance. This leads to an increase in the staff 
time at reference service and less priority being able to be directed 
to other essential tasks. In contrast, LCC has comprehensive facets 
that increase the discoverability of bibliographic data and improve 
researchers’ productivity.  It allows the researcher to narrow and 
widen the search scope. Secondly, LCC facets can support the librar-
ian in organizing knowledge and information, evaluating collection 
strength, and analysing for collection development effectively and 
efficiently.

5. Is DDC less biased than LCC?
DDC has been criticized for its weakness of cultural and religious 
biases by scholars.  Harvey and Hider (2004) made the criticism that 
DDC was US and Western, with Anglo-Saxon social and cultural bias. 
The criticisms of DDC from the Australian point of view have been 
aired frequently. 

Chan and Salaba (2007, 2015) commented that an Anglo-Ameri-
can bias is particularly obvious in 900 (Geography and History), and 
800 (Literature). Further, 200 (Religion) shows a heavy bias towards 
American Protestantism. Mai (2016) found that the editors of DDC 
noted in a blog post in 2006:

 “We’re the first to admit that the top-level view of 200 Religion 
in the DDC is problematic.” (Mai 2016)

In Dewey 23rd edition, it says, “In 200 Religion, they have initi-
ated updates of provisions for the Orthodox Church and Islam; 
further work is planned on both of these areas after the publication 
of Edition 23.”

At the same time, Higgins (2016) was concerned that DDC lacked 
consistence and clarity of the definition of terms, such as ‘race’ and 
‘ethnic’, and that led to systemic culture bias away from their original 
design for organising a universal knowledge system with no racial 
and religious bias.  Lund and Agbjai (2018) also claimed that DDC was 
culturally biased, lacking breadth of classifying for non-Christian 
religions and non-white cultures. 



74  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

However, Noland (2017) compared LCC with the Judaic library 
classification system, Elazar, and made the criticism that LCC and 
DDC incorporated the Bible, Judaism, and Israel into a general, non-
Jewish world of knowledge without relating Jewish and Jewish-
oriented subjects to one another.  He commented that LCC lacked 
specificity in organising Jewish content and that this was not neces-
sarily viewed as a lack of support or interest in the Judaic way 
of life, but was rather part of the general problem of identifying 
specific topics within broad, standardized systems (Noland 2017). 
He suggested that terminology needs updating to allow for specific 
and broad searching contexts.

6. Other considerations 
Other concerns were also taken into consideration that: 

• The Chinese collection will lack support for classification and 
cataloguing from their counterparts if they choose to use DDC. 

• Vendors provide LCC call numbers for electronic resources, e.g., 
from the Atla Religion and Philosophy database and e-books. 
The class number of electronic resources were not used for 
physical location, but it was used for other purposes, such as 
virtual browsing or collection development and maintenance 
(Bothmann 2004). Classification and reclassification are still 
relevant in the digital environment even in a mobile world 
(Steele and Foote 2011). If we chose to use DDC, the librar-
ian will reclassify e-resources from LCC to DDC for resource 
management; as a result, it would increase the staff time for 
cataloguing and resource management.

7. Decision Made and Implementation of Reclassification
After careful consideration of the pros and cons, we finally decided 
to choose LCC over DDC to reclassify the entire Chinese theological 
collection. An implementation plan, budget, and timeline were devel-
oped; these were approved by the executives.

7.1 Reclassification Project Preparation 
7.1.1 Find the corresponding LC call number.

The librarian and a volunteer librarian used free soft-
ware, MarcEdit, to export bibliographical data and 
conduct batch searching with ISBN via Z39.50 to find 



Papers  75

the records with LC call number from other library 
catalogues. 

Those records that could not be found from batch 
searching were searched from different library cata-
logues or had an LCC number assigned to them. Then 
the records were downloaded to MarcEdit.

7.1.2 Open MarcEdit’s Merge Records function to merge 
records with the same ISBN and overlay tag 050 to our 
bibliographical records.

7.1.3 Prepare spreadsheet. We extracted the data to the Excel 
spreadsheet for other volunteers to change the item 
call numbers and print the new call number labels to 
replace the old ones.

7.1.4 Recruit volunteers and provide training.
7.1.5 Calculate the shelf space.

The librarian used the new call numbers to calculate 
the shelf space requirements and to map the location 
for different areas. 

7.2 Project Implementation 
7.2.1 The librarian relocated the identified area to the empty 

shelves as a temporary location. Then the volunteer 
began to relabel the items and shelved them by the 
LCC call number.

7.2.2 Returned items were changed to new call numbers 
before they were reshelved.

7.2.3 Monitor the project timeline and program.
7.2.4 Design and develop an online educational module 

about Library of Congress Classification in Chinese 
for users to learn at their own pace (Appendix 1). The 
librarian used educational software, Articulate, to 
develop an interactive program for students to learn 
about LCC structure, including class and subclass 
browsing, notation, and shelf order. 

7.2.5 A survey for the online module evaluation was devel-
oped.

7.2.6 Conduct the Chinese Collection Subject Analysis with 
LC call numbers and facets and create a visualisa-



76  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

tion chart to describe breadth and depth of the whole 
collection (Appendix 2).

8. Outcomes

8.1 The project completion was delayed due to multiple COVID 
lockdowns in Melbourne. Since the project relied on volun-
teers’ contribution of their effort and time, the lockdowns 
prevented them from coming in the library to help on the 
project.

8.2 The project achieved the objectives and goals. Eighty percent 
of the collection has been converted to LCC call numbers.

8.3 There was no library service interruption or adverse effects 
on the users.

8.4 An online training module for users was successfully 
launched, which empowered users to master the classifica-
tion system and ease their anxiety around the change.
We received positive feedback from a few users. A respon-
dent commented, “The system is easy to follow with the list 
of information; suggest to put the subclass list or related 
information on somewhere we can easily access to help user 
to remember.”

8.5 Increased staff productivity, in particular in cataloguing and 
accessioning, and reduced staff time at the reference desk 
and helping users to locate items in the library.

8.6 Improve collection management and increase its visibility. 
To illustrate: 
8.6.1 LCC improved the discoverability and visibility of the 

Chinese collection. The users were able to use facets to 
drill down to special topics relating to their research 
and effectively retrieved information from the library 
systems and shelves.

8.6.2 English materials integrated well with Chinese 
language materials. Translated work can be placed 
side-by-side with the original work. It led to a question, 



Papers  77

“Should LOTE materials be separated from Main Collec-
tion if LCC can integrate different language materials?”

8.7 The librarian effectively conducted an in-depth collection 
analysis for Chinese Department, including quantities 
(counts of titles per area) and qualitative aspects (facets). 
She was able to evaluate the collections’ strengths and weak-
nesses, i.e., identify collection gaps, and evaluate databases, 
acquisitions, and electronic resource subscriptions.

9. Conclusion
The reclassification of Chinese Theological Collection sheds light 
on information and knowledge organisation and management. It 
refreshes our understanding and information practice.

Classification is the foundation of knowledge organisation and a 
core business activity that supports many aspects of library service. 
These include collection development and acquisition, information 
retrieval and discovery, information literacy, research support, lend-
ing service, reference services, and user experience.

Classification improves technical services by increasing collec-
tion capacity, collection discoverability and visibility, and collec-
tion acquisition and maintenance. It improves user experience in 
discovering and retrieving information regardless of the physical 
and digital environments. It increases research capacity and aids 
research support services. It enhances the design and development 
of information literacy which become more engaging and interac-
tive and facilitate teaching and learning. This results in enhancing 
the user’s overall experiences in using the library service.

Classification is not merely for shelving and retrieving items in 
a library branch. Information professionals should strategically 
rethink and reposition classification and transform it into a value-
added service to the library.

REFERENCES

ACL. 2017. “Classification Systems.” ACL Library. https://e-resources.
alc.edu.au/library-guides/Pages/Classification-systems.aspx.

ALA. 2020. “Dewey or LC? .” American Library Association. Accessed 
3 June 2020. http://www.ala.org/tools/dewey-or-lc.

https://e-resources.alc.edu.au/library-guides/Pages/Classification-systems.aspx
https://e-resources.alc.edu.au/library-guides/Pages/Classification-systems.aspx
http://www.ala.org/tools/dewey-or-lc


78  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

Bothmann, Robert. 2004. “Cataloging Electronic Books.” Library 
Resources & Technical Services 48 (1): 12-19.

Butler, Rebecca. 2013. “The Rise and Fall of Union Classification.” 
Theological Librarianship 6 (1): Theological Librarianship. https://
doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i1.254.

Chan, Lois May. 2007. Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction. 
Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Chan, Lois May, and Athena Salaba. 2015. Cataloging and Classifica-
tion: An Introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing 
Group, Incorporated.

Eisenhart, Ruth C. . 1960. “The Classification of Theological Books.” 
Library Trends, 9, no. 1960: Current Trends in Theological Librar-
ies (2): 257-269. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/5943.

Gangu, B.T., and R. Pommal Rao. 2002. “Classification, New Subjects 
and Dewey Decimal Classification Overcoming 18th edition. 
Limitations.” Annals of Library and Information Studies 49 (1): 
13-22. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/4132/1/
ALIS%2049%281%29%2013-22.pdf.

Harvey, Ross , and Hilip Hider. 2004. Organising Knowledge in a 
Global Dociety: Principles and Practice in Libraries and Informtion 
Centres. Wagga Wagga: Cenre for Information Studies, Charles 
Sturt University.

Higgins, Molly. 2016. “Totally Invisible: Asian American Representa-
tion in the Dewey Decimal Classification, 1876-1996.” Knowledge 
Organization 43 (8): 609-621.

Lund, Brady D., and Daniel A. Agbaji. 2018. “What Scheme Do We 
Prefer? An Examination of Preference between Library of 
Congress and Dewey Decimal Cassification among US-based 
Academic Library Employees.” KO Knowledge Organization 45 
(5): 380-392.

Mai, J-E. . 2016. “Marginalization and Exclusion: Unraveling 
Systemic Bias in Classification.” Knowledge Organization 43 (5): 
324-330.

Noland, C. G. . 2017. “Classification Methods in Context at Theologi-
cal Libraries: A Case Study.” SLIS Student Research Journal 7 (1). 

https://doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i1.254
https://doi.org/10.31046/tl.v6i1.254
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/5943
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/4132/1/ALIS%2049%281%29%2013-22.pdf
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/4132/1/ALIS%2049%281%29%2013-22.pdf


Papers  79

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06bc/7d00a252767b7dabaf374a
b8666df2cef39d.pdf.

Steele, Thomas D., and Jody Bales Foote. 2011. “Reclassification in 
Academic Research Libraries: Is It Still Relevant in an E-Book 
World?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 49: 14-32.

Stevens, Kerrie. 2021. “ANZTLA 2020 Statistics.” The ANZTLA EJour-
nal (26). https://serials.atla.com/anztla/article/view/2930/3638.

Walker, Christopher H, and Ann Copeland. 2009. “The Eye Prophetic: 
Julia Pettee.” Libraries & the Cultural Record 44 (2): 162-82. https://
doi.org/10.1353/lac.0.0069.

APPENDIX 1. USER TRAINING MODULE

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06bc/7d00a252767b7dabaf374ab8666df2cef39d.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06bc/7d00a252767b7dabaf374ab8666df2cef39d.pdf
https://serials.atla.com/anztla/article/view/2930/3638
https://doi.org/10.1353/lac.0.0069
https://doi.org/10.1353/lac.0.0069


80  AT L A 202 1 PROCEEDINGS

FIGURE 5: MSTC Print and Electronic Books Collection Subject Analysis with LC call 
numbers

FIGURE 6: MSTC Print and Electronic Books Collection Subject Analysis with facets

APPENDIX 2. GRAPHS FOR THE MSTC PRINT AND ELECTRONIC 
BOOKS COLLECTION SUBJECT ANALYSIS WITH LC CALL NUMBER 
AND FACETS


