Even if there was a URI for LCC, I wouldn't put it in rft_id unless an 
individual LCC uniquely identifies a particular manifestation--I don't 
_think_ it does, I think two books can share the same LCC?  But I guess 
not when you include all the trailing 'cutter'-type numbers? 

At any rate, there clearly isn't a good place for LCC in a SAP1/2 OpenURL. 

But we should probably take this interesting (to some of us) discussion 
to the OpenURL list.

Jonathan

Hellman,Eric wrote:
> True, but sad.
>
> Sent from Eric Hellman's iPhone
> 1-862-596-0116
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:20 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Eric Hellman wrote:
>>> Yep. There's no URI for LCC. You could put LCC in the subject field 
>>> of a
>>> dublin core profile metadata format ContextObject. But it's not 
>>> clear why
>>> anyone would want to do that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, it could provide some -- dare I say? -- CONTEXT. Having the 
>> classification could help a resolver route the request to the 
>> appropriate library catalog if a union catalog isn't available. 
>> Having the classification could aid a service trying to disambiguate 
>> author names. Having the classification could provide a library with 
>> interesting statistics on requests, failed requests, and collection 
>> development.
>>
>> Probably none of this is done today, but I think the LCC will become 
>> more interesting to us as we begin to go beyond bibliographic 
>> matching to bibliographic data mining.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------
>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
>> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>

-- 
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886 
rochkind (at) jhu.edu