Oh - looks like the item display didn't survive the transition to IIS 7 -
I'll look into that.
Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian
Colgate University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Cindy Harper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A couple years ago, I used a crossmap of LC call numbers to subject
> headings (admittedly out of date) to provide subject-labeled sort by call
> number on an experimental catalog search.http://lisv06.colgate.edu/profound/
> The mapping came from Mona Scott. Conversion Tables<http://encore.colgate.edu/iii/encore/search/C%7CSmona+subject+scott%7COrightresult%7CU1?lang=eng&suite=def>
> I don't know how robust this is, but try searching a word that will appear
> across subject areas, like "brown", to see the classification/subject
> I read the tables into a database, and in a batch process, coded each call
> number division by how deep into the hierarchy it was linked - the number
> of indents from 1 to 6. My ambition was to then try to find the most
> frequently used subject headings in each step of the hierarchy (limited to
> a workable range) to try to generate some semantic-net-like set of links
> between subject headings and classification. But I never was able to
> pursue that goal.
> Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian
> Colgate University Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM, David Friggens <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> > Clicking on one of Ben Shneiderman's treemapping projects reminded me
>> > I've always thought treemaps  would serve well as a browsing
>> > for library and archive collections because they work well with
>> > data.
>> I played around with this earlier in the year, wanting to provide a
>> drill-down into our collections by call number.
>> For our Education Library's Teaching Collection, I used a three-level
>> visualisation of items based on Dewey hierarchy, and coloured by the
>> proportion of "new" (post 2006) items. I never put it online anywhere,
>> so have attached it here.
>> Dewey was pretty easy to get labels for the first three levels, and
>> that seemed reasonable enough for most areas. But the majority of our
>> items are LCC, and that's where I ran aground. The labels for the
>> first two letters are readily available, but far too general to make
>> this interesting. I couldn't seem to find any useful data in machine
>> readable format. Sourcing another level down from LoC  or Wikipedia
>>  seems tantalisingly close, but there's a whole lot of manual
>> effort in turning these (incomplete) ranges into something usable.
>>  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Classification
>> oʇɐʞıɐʍ ɟo ʎʇısɹǝʌıun
>> uɐıɹɐɹqıן sɯǝʇsʎs