> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> The main study on this subject was the Michigan study performed/led 
>> by Karen
>> Markey (some reports were written as Karen M. Drabenstott.  The 
>> final report
>> of the project is available at
>> http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/57992 .  The work took 
>> place in
>> the mid to late 90s, after  Airlie .
 ...
>> The most perplexing results were those that showed that measured
>> understanding was lower when headings were displayed in the context 
>> of a
>> bibliographic record rather than on their own. This indicates either 
>> a
>> problem in the measurement process, or an either more fundamental 
>> problem
>> with subdivided headings that may so negate the significant 
>> theoretical
>> advantages of pre-coordination that the value of the whole practice 
>> is
>> thrown in to doubt.

 That is fascinating. And disturbing. I don't think I ever read the 
 original study, but now I'll have to.

>> Touching on another topic, I believe that   the movement of 
>> geographical
>> subdivisions to follow the right most geographically sub-dividable
>> subdivision can sometimes be interrupted by the interposition of a 
>> $x
>> topical subdivision, but I haven't determined whether this is a 
>> legacy
>> exception (the ones that came to mind were related to subtopics of 
>> the US
>> Civil War, which seems inevitable given that  the first elements are 
>> "United
>> States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--").
>>
 I think the key here is partly "In 1992, it was decided to adopt that 
 order where it could be applied." so LC didn't promise to do them all. 
 $x History is probably the biggest one that hasn't been made 
 geographically subdividable, but it's hard to say if that's on principle 
 or because of practical concerns about the huge amount of disruption 
 that would cause in individual systems. It's interesting that some of 
 the biggies like "economic aspects" are more recent.

 One of the challenges for pre-coordinated strings at least as currently 
 implemented (that facets evade) is that no order will suit everyone. 
 Which of the following is better?

 Dwellings $z Australia $x History $y 20th century
 Dwellings $z Indonesia $x Economic aspects
 Dwellings $z Indonesia $x Psychological aspects
 Dwellings $z Indonesia $x Social aspects
 Dwellings $z Ireland $x Economic aspects
 Dwellings $z Ireland $x Psychological aspects
 Dwellings $z Ireland $x Social aspects
 Dwellings $z Japan $x Economic aspects
 Dwellings $z Japan $x Psychological aspects
 Dwellings $z Japan $x Social aspects

 OR (mostly current practice)

 *Dwellings $z Australia $x History $y 20th century  **Current practice
 Dwellings $x Economic aspects $z Indonesia
 Dwellings $x Economic aspects $z Ireland
 Dwellings $x Economic aspects $z Japan
 *Dwellings $x History $z Australia $y 20th century  **Airlie 
 recommendation
 Dwellings $x Psychological aspects $z Indonesia
 Dwellings $x Psychological aspects $z Ireland
 Dwellings $x Psychological aspects $z Japan
 Dwellings $x Social aspects $z Indonesia
 Dwellings $x Social aspects $z Ireland
 Dwellings $x Social aspects $z Japan

 Probably not helpful to have history be an outlier, though.

 Kelley