The author’s title is a little misleading: the relabeling and reshelving of the books only took eight weeks; however, the reclassification from DDC to LCC took about two years. Beatty discusses the obstacles that the library employees went through searching for records that already provided LCC numbers, and in learning to use the schedules to create numbers when absolutely necessary. Like many who work with LCC, she was most displeased that LCC lacks an overall index. The paper does include history and discussion of the system, but it is more about the journey of reclassification. 

Chan, Lois Mai. Immroth’s guide to the Library of Congress Classification. Littleton, Col.: Libraries Unlimited, 1980. 

The first chapter is very useful: it discusses the history of the Library of Congress, and then the scheme itself in the great depth. Chan gives examples of the early attempts at classification, and then all the different classification schemes that were considered. The next several chapters are also helpful in explaining how LCC is implemented, and what changes have been made over the past one hundred years. Overall, Chan’s work is a superb source, both in its accessibility to those new to studying LCC and those looking for specific characteristics. 

- - -. “The Library of Congress Classification system in an online environment.”   Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11.1 (1990); 7-25. 

- - -. “Library of Congress Classification as an online retrieval tool: potentials and  limitations.” University technology and libraries. (1986): 181-192. 

These two pieces can be annotated together as the later article reads like a revised edition of the first. The 1986 article comes across as a conversational brainstorm, using DDC as a comparison point for many of the arguments. The second feels more structured and polished, like a piece that has been rethought and revised. Overall, Chan keeps the main theme that online searches using LCC numbers will be beneficial to all, both library staff and library users. She believes they will become yet another tool in the search for information, and proposes them as good tools because they are so readily available (each book in the catalog will have one) and that they are precise. However, these pieces are outdated because now many OPACs do offer call number searching.

Fischer, Audrey. “A blueprint of his mind: reconstructing the Jefferson Collection.” American Libraries 30.11 (1999): 58-60. 

This article provides information for historical perspective, specifically on the discussion of Jefferson’s sale to the Library of Congress. Truthfully, this article functioned as an advertisement to retain copies of the 700 titles that were missing from the collection (a second fire in 1851 wiped out much of the original Jefferson collection) and alluding to the possibility that not all 6,487 would be included in the bicentennial exhibition. 

Foskett, A.C. “The Library of Congress Classification.” The subject approach to  information. London: Clive Bingley, 1977: 359-367. 

This chapter reads like a starting point for learning LCC and could be helpful to a beginner looking for minimal understand of the scheme. It does not cover the historical and structural elements of the scheme in as great of detail as other works do. Thus, it would be most useful to a novice learner. 

Gilmore, Virginia and Layne E. Nordgren. “The Macintoshed media catalog: helping people find what they need in spite of LC.” OCLC Micro 5.4 (1989): 8-10. 

This article had little to do with LCC. The authors built a catalog of the video collection on a MacIntosh computer as a supplemental catalog separate from the OPAC, which this which this media department found to be useless to their users. This works illustrates the lack of communication between different departments in a library, but lends no valuable information to anyone researching LCC. 

High, Walter M. “Library of Congress Classification numbers as Subject Access points in computer-based retrieval.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11.1 (1990): 37-43. 

This article’s discussion of Chan’s 1990 piece is good because it breaks down the pros and cons of her ideas one at a time, and compares of how helpful her ideas would be for the user, the technical services librarians, and the public service librarians. This source gives a great perspective that each of Chan’s goals for using LCC in the online environment would be beneficial to someone; however, High points out that the someone is not often the user. 

Hoage, A Annette Lewis. The Library of Congress Classification in the United States: a survey of opinions and practices, with attention to problems of structure and application. Diss. Columbia U., 1961. Ann Arbor : UMI, 1961.

This source is less helpful to someone interested in learning about LCC as a scheme. Instead, the author was doing a study on institutions using it and their users reactions. Thus, it does not go into much detail about LCC structure and history.

Inter, Sheila S. and Elizabeth Futas. “The role and impact of Library of Congress  Classification on the Assessment of Women’s studies collections.” Library  Acquisitions: practice & theory 20.3 (1996): 267-279. 

This piece gave a good introduction to women’s studies and to the LCC scheme, making it an excellent read for one who is new to or unfamiliar with either field of study. However, it is unclear whether the authors are pleased with LCC’s treatment of women’s studies. Overall, the source dealt more with its other focus, collection development, than it did with LCC’s treatment of works on and about women.

Krauthammer, Charles. “The sublime oxymoron: celebrating the very American  contradictions of Thomas Jefferson.” Time 155.21 (2000): 64. 

A plus for this article is that it offers a new perspective of Jefferson through the average American eyes, not through a librarian’s. However, the article functioned as an advertisement for the Jefferson exhibit, celebrating the bicentennial of the Library of Congress. Therefore, it has little to teach someone looking for information on the LCC scheme. 

Saye, Jerry D. “’ The Library of Congress Classification system in an online environment’: a reaction.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11.1 (1990): 27-35. 

Saye offers a positive and convincing argument—convincing that Chan’s vision is not so great. His strongest point is that searching with LCC numbers is only useful to those familiar with the scheme, and with their own subject area, previous to using the online catalog. He closes with “I fear we will not have gone much beyond the stage of merely computerizing our card catalogs rather than truly enhancing the retrieval of information—which I believe we can all agree is our primary goal.” However, this source is outdated because now many OPACs do offer call number searching.

Schimmelpfend, Richard H. and C. Donald Cook, eds. “General advantages and disadvantages of using the Library of Congress Classification.” The use of Library of Congress Classification. Proc. of the Institute on the Use of the Library of Congress Classification, New York, July 7-9 1966. Chicago: ALA, 1968. 209-220. 

The last chapter of this book appears to offer pros and cons of the LCC scheme; however, it contradicts itself often and makes many rash statements. Early on it has a paragraph that goes back and forth about whether or not LCC is truly a classification scheme, and it never brings that argument to a conclusion. Later the authors condemn libraries for not reclassifying their collections as newer versions of LCC are published “Any library which does not bring its holdings up to date as the tables are altered well deserves the criticism it undoubtedly gets from its users.” Clearly these people think technical services employees have nothing better to do than reclassify books all day. Overall, this chapter would only confuse a novice and entertain a scholar. 

Smith, Jim. “Using Library of Congress playing cards to train student shelvers.”   College & Undergraduate Libraries 3.1 (1996): 1-15. 

The cards presented in this piece are rather sophomoric and strike those experienced with the scheme as useless. However, it appears these cards do provide useful training to new shelvers. Overall, this piece offers a new idea to those training shelvers, but explains little about the functions or problems with LCC.

Sawson, Gerald L., ed. Dewey to LC conversion tables. New York: CCM Information  corporation, 1972. 

This source is not useful as a teaching tool. The two page introduction is extremely contradictory. First it starts out with “The [conversion] tables are not intended as a means of bypassing the use of the Library of Congress schedules but rather as a tool for a more rapid approach to the LC Classification schedules from the Dewey numbers” yet it closes with “the one-to-one conversion situation takes place in about 50% of all instances, which should enable reclassification of a large amount of material to be done with clerical workers under minimal supervision.” 

The one-to-one conversion instances are quite simple, but what about the other 50% the numbers? For instance, 823.914 has about 600 LC class numbers to choose from, with no explanation about what any of them mean. Each of the 600 numbers is more specific in some way, and probably only a few would be applicable to the book in question. With the way this guide is written, there is no way to know which number is correct. Therefore, 50% of the time all 48 schedules are needed, and people who understand them, making the conversion nowhere near as easy as this pretends. However, with access to MARC records in OCLC, this source is already obsolete, not to mention with the changes that have been made in both schemes in the past thirty years. Therefore, this book is not a helpful one. 

Taylor, Arlene J. "Library of Congress Classification." Wynar’s Introduction to  Cataloging and Classification. Englewood, Col.: Libraries Unlimited, 2000:  303-323. 

This chapter functions mostly as a straightforward summary of Chan. Taylor reinforces the historical information quickly and then moves ahead into the meat of the schedules and the process of classification in LCC. This source is good for someone new to the scheme, or for one returning to it and hoping for a refresher.

Wiegand, Wayne. “This month, 103 years ago…” American Libraries 31.9 (2000):  82. 

This article is short and to the point, giving just a touch a history of the Library of Congress. It is a great place for a novice to start studying LCC; otherwise, this source is rather useless. 

Zhou, Jian-zhoug (Joe). “A new subclass for Library of Congress Classification, QF: Computer Science.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 26.1 (1998): 37-44. 

This work explains why computer science books were originally classed within mathematics and not technology. It covers computer science and the mathematics class in good detail; clearly the author understands what he is talking about. It reads well enough that someone new to LCC could understand it, but such a researcher may not find it very interesting. This source is probably more interesting to someone previously familiar with the problems found in LCC.