Where do you class a book discussing the 1980 consular convention between United States and China? Where does the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations class? Consular law presents a real classification problem in the KZ/JZ era.

Go to KZ and you find the following references:

   "For diplomatic service and consular service,
       see JZ1400+"
   "For consular laws, codes, consular documents,
       etc., see the appropriate K subclasses"  
   "Scope of international relations.  Diplomacy.
       Diplomatic and consular service, see JZ1400+"

Off to JZ and you find the following:

   "Consuls.  The consular service
       For consular courts and procedure, see the
       appropriate jurisdiction in class K
       subclasses, e. g. KK3693, Courts of special
       jurisdiction
       For consular laws (codes) governing the
       consular service, including privileges and
       immunities, consular jurisdiction, etc., see
       the appropriate jurisdiction in class K
       subclasses, e. g. KK5445+, The foreign
       service

   JZ1444     General works
                  Including history

   JZ1446     Consular functions
                  Including administration of
                    estates, functions in
                    international (foreign) trade,
                    certifications, etc." 

JZ1440+ is the section for diplomatic and consular service in general and for particular countries. Remember JZ is for international relations not for international law. There is nothing in KZ so go to K. Looking up the word consular in K in Classification Plus you find numbers for consular courts and for consular functions in the case of conflict of laws regarding succession upon death. The country schedules have numbers for foreign service. I find nothing for the consular law.

KBR and KBU Draft copies of KBR (History of Canon law) and KBU (Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Holy See) are available on the homepage of the Library of Congress Cataloging Policy and Support Office (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/kbr_kbu.html). Please send comments to Dr. Jolande Goldberg by June 30 (jgol@loc.gov). Her other address information is available on the homepage.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines consuls as representatives of a country living in a foreign country to oversee commercial and other interests involving the representative’s home country and its citizens. The legal part of commercial interests would class in the K schedules commercial law and the nonlegal part would continue to class in H. Where should you put the general consular law material and the part relating to the citizens? The functions relating to citizens include passports and visas, notarizing documents, assistance with succession and death, registering marriage and birth, etc. Some of these functions would normally class under persons but that does not seem right for consular material. Looking in KF, I find three possible places for a section on consular law. These are all under constitutional law:

    KF4650-4694 Foreign relations
    KF4791-4846 Control of individuals
    KF5110-5118 Department of State (includes
                  foreign service)

In order to solve this problem, we need to look at the consular law materials in our libraries. Examine the topics covered in relation to the above (or other) categories. KF5110+ would be the right place for materials dealing with the consuls themselves but what about the areas they administer? Since the functions cover citizens in a foreign country, would it be best to class with control of individuals near passports and visas? Aren’t consular relations like foreign relations – maybe the place is near neutrality? Yesterday I was in favor of classing with control of individuals and today I just want to dump consuls and consular law in one number under foreign service. Once the most appropriate, if not the best, place for consular law is decided upon, scope notes and numbers need to be created in many of the K schedules. This is a "stay tuned" issue like the international claims.

KF form division tables is another area that may need work. I, for one, do not want to change any of the forms but should we ask that some forms be parenthesized and no longer used? Here are KF forms to start thinking about:

Yearbooks. Statistics: According to the Subject Cataloging Manual: Classification, yearbook call numbers are no longer used. So this form is used for statistics. How about putting parentheses around the form and referring statistics to the periodicals or general works form numbers, whichever is appropriate? Don’t forget that judicial statistics class in KF180+. Society publications: This form is for a publication by a society about itself. Again it is not a heavily used form and would it hurt anything to refer it to general works or periodicals? Some newsletters that might qualify for this number have enough subject content to class with periodicals. Congresses and conferences. By date. Including meetings intended to result in concerted action, e.g., recommendations for law revision, new legislation, government action, etc.: Okay how often have you seen LC use this form? I keep going back to Piper and Kwan to refresh my mind about what this form means. Let’s parenthesize this and refer it to the regular congress and conferences number, i.e. symposia. Collections. Monographic series: Again I went to Piper and Kwan, Manual on KF, for help understanding this form. It is basically for monographic series which are better (especially for shelvers) classed with periodicals. Collections could be moved to Collected papers.

Some of you may wonder why "Popular works" is not on this list. Years ago I suggested getting rid of it and the reference librarians at the Supreme Court and Law Library of Congress said no. They like seeing the .Z9 in a KF call number and understood it. Whenever a cataloger has the urge to get rid of a form division, it is wise to check with the reference staff. If a form division means something is and used by a reference librarian, let’s keep it.

I wonder if the KF form divisions should be touched at all. We all see many different interpretations of the forms and what they mean. KF has been in use since 1967 and maybe it is best to leave it alone. Think about it.

Correction to Vol. 25, No. 3 (March 2000) page 16 In the previous issue of TSLL, the last two sentences of the Classification column were omitted. The final paragraph should have read: It is now 2000 and the K schedules are almost done. Jolande is busy finishing the religious law schedules. It will be wonderful to have them done. Here is hoping that in the next twenty five years we sharpen our classification skills and continue to share our K expertise. Our apologies go to Marie Whited for the inadvertent omission. The Editors

| « Acquisitions | Collection Development » |