We also include keywords in our repository when the content provider
supplies them. I didn't include it in my previous post because the OP asked
about lists of terms and not free text, which our keywords are.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Michael J. Giarlo <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What Ross said, Shaun. We also allow users to key in free-text subjects,
> since LCSH is not everything to everyone.
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> > Mike, what do you mean when you say "don't think in terms of LCSH"? Is
> > there some other vocabulary that they think in? If LCSH is the best
> > option, the right interface may help them "think in terms of LCSH". For
> > example, auto-completion/suggestion of headings when tagging or searching
> > might be necessary.
> > -Shaun
> > On 8/30/13 10:05 AM, Michael J. Giarlo wrote:
> >> We are using LCSH in our repository, but it hasn't been very widely used
> >> because our users, largely research faculty and staff, don't think in
> >> terms
> >> of LCSH.
> >> -Mike
> >> On Aug 30, 2013 9:28 AM, "Matthew Sherman" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Hello Code4Libbers,
> >>> I am working on cleaning up our institutional repository, and one of
> >>> big areas of improvement needed is the list of terms from the subject
> >>> fields. It is messy and I want to take the subject terms and place
> >>> into a much better order. I was contemplating using Library of
> >>> Subject Headings, but I wanted to see what others have done in this
> >>> to
> >>> see if there is another good controlled vocabulary that could work
> >>> better.
> >>> Any insight is welcome. Thanks for your time everyone.
> >>> Matt Sherman
> >>> Digital Content Librarian
> >>> University of Bridgeport