One alternative to LCSH is FAST . It uses LCSH terms but breaks up
the pre-coordinated (and pretty much incomprehensible) strings into
separate subject statements. So something like:
Italy -- Art -- 18th century
As a *vocabulary* FAST is pretty extensive. And it's openly available,
On 8/30/13 8:36 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> I think the argument is that "librarians think in LCSH/academics think in discipline-specific vocabularies".
> How many medical collections use LCSH over MeSH, for example?
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>> 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 the
>>>> 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 them
>>>> into a much better order. I was contemplating using Library of Congress
>>>> Subject Headings, but I wanted to see what others have done in this area 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
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net