This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses.
Sample survey work undertaken by the John Crerar Library and the University of Chicago Library in the summer of 1980 is described. The sample survey, which supplied information for the contemplated merger of the two libraries, estimated the number of volumes and titles at Crerar and estimated the duplication between the Crerar collections and the science collections at Chicago. Steps in the survey project are described, and the survey's findings for volume duplication are presented, analyzed by subject groupings and further analyzed by books and serials. Subsequent counts, which have tended to confirm the early estimates, are also given.
Catalogers and library educators were surveyed to assess their attitudes and
opinions about the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules and
to learn their ideas about possible future directions for the cataloging code. The survey instrument contained a series of negative, positive, and neutral statements taken from the professional literature about the code and asked respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement. Results indicate that there is strong, positive, overall support for AACR2 among both groups. This support, however, varies according to different aspects of the code. The two groups have differing perceptions about particular strengths and weaknesses of the code. Respondents are opposed to an AAC'R3 anytime in the near future but do see a need for changes to certain chapters and rules. There is also strong opposition to the development of acataloging code that is radically dfferent from an AA CR-type code. Recommendations for the areas most in need of revision are made.
Division of subject responsibilities among a corps of librarians has been acknowledged as a continuing challenge for collection development officers. Few attempts to address this problem have been published. This article reviews personnel administration techniques that have been used to establish work-load parameters, but offer no aid in subject deployment. A model that identifies elements that must be included in a consideration of work-load measurement and subject allocation is presented with the objective of stimulating further attention to this challenge.