Abstract: The International Standard Classification Number and the Chinese Standard Classification Number are essential information for current standard literature and serve as important access points for retrieval. With regard to these two classification numbers, the National Library of China adopts a practice of not recording them, while the CALIS Joint Cataloging Center records in the 300 field. Some scholars have also suggested recording both numbers simultaneously in the 686 field. Based on the field definitions and arrangement principles of CNMARC, this paper argues that catalogers should apply different classification fields when indexing standards documents: the International Standard Classification Number uses the 686 field, while the Chinese Standard Classification Number uses the 696 field.

Key words: Standards literature, , International Standard Classification, Chinese Standard Classification, 686 field, 696 field