<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/"
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
         xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/
         http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-10-02T02:15:57Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:dcpapers.dublincore.org:952661074" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://dcpapers.dublincore.org/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:dcpapers.dublincore.org:952661074</identifier>
        <datestamp>2026-09-10</datestamp>
        <setSpec>dcmi-2026</setSpec>
        <setSpec>openaire</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
    <oai_dc:dc
        xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"
        xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
        xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/
        http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
      <dc:title>Together in Practice: Comparing LCC and DDC Assignment Across Library of Congress Bibliographic Records</dc:title>
      <dc:creator>Li, Kai</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Choi, Inkyung</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Cheng, Jessica Yi-Yun</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Jenkins, Zach</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Dobreski, Brian</dc:creator>
      <dc:description>Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) are two of the most widely used knowledge organization systems in libraries, yet empirical understanding of how they align and diverge in cataloging practice at scale remains limited. This paper examines co-assignment patterns between LCC and DDC classes using 4,042,962 dual-classified bibliographic records drawn from the Library of Congress&apos;s book catalog. Through descriptive quantitative analysis and bipartite network analysis, we identify areas of strong and weak structural correspondence between the two systems. Results reveal that well-defined humanities disciplines — including law, fine arts, religion, literature, and history — exhibit high one-to-one alignment, while broader and more applied domains such as social sciences, technology, and computer and information science show markedly dispersed cross-system mappings. A structural asymmetry is also evident: LCC classes tend to map more sharply to single DDC counterparts than vice versa. Network analysis identifies seven disciplinary communities and highlights Social Sciences and Technology as key interdisciplinary hubs, while second-level classes reveal contrasting topologies — a hub-centric star structure for LCC:G and a fragmented, multi-polar constellation for DDC:6XX. These findings carry practical implications for library reclassification projects, cataloging workflows, and the reuse of bibliographic metadata in emerging technological environments.</dc:description>
      <dc:publisher>Dublin Core Metadata Initiative</dc:publisher>
      <dc:date>2026-09-10</dc:date>
      <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject</dc:type>
      <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
      <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
      <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
      <dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.23106/dcmi.952661074</dc:identifier>
      <dc:identifier>https://dcpapers.dublincore.org/article/952661074</dc:identifier>
      <dc:source>Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Conference Proceedings</dc:source>
      <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
      <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
      <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</dc:rights>
    </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>