On 4/6/16 9:51 AM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> ... Libraries "do" it, but our user interfaces ignore it (honestly, does
>> anyone NOT think that the whole BT/NT relationship in LCSH is completely
>> wasted in today's systems?).  Google searches "work" best on proper nouns
>> that are nearly unique. You cannot do concept searches, and you cannot see
>> relationships between concepts. It's great for named people, organizations
>> and products, but not great for anything else.[1]...
>
> Conceptually, I like the idea of using the relationships in LCSH. However,
> I don't hold out much hope that anyone will make hay out of that.
>
> The percentage of things that have decent LCSH assigned to them is small
> and shrinking for the simple reason that a fewer and fewer humans have to
> manage more resources.

I'm not sure what you are saying here -- that there are fewer headings 
being assigned, or that they are not as "good" as ones assigned in the 
past? Or is it that many of our resources aren't covered by library 
cataloging rules?

> Automation could help (getting the needed data from
> publishers might be tricky), but the only benefit I can think of for using
> LCSH for automated applications is to maximize relationships with older
> materials -- possibly at the expense of the "findability" of the newer
> stuff.
>
> LCSH is relatively flat, the rules for constructing headings are so
> Byzantine that they stymie even experienced catalogers (which contributes
> to inconsistent application in terms of quality, level of analysis, and
> completeness), and its ability to express concepts at all is highly
> variable as it is designed by a committee on an enumerative basis.

?? Sorry, what's this "enumerative basis"?

>   Add to
> this that concepts in records frequently must be expressed across multiple
> headings and subheadings, any type of automated assignment is going to
> result in really "dirty" relationships so I can't blame ILS designers for
> limiting their use of LCSH primarily to controlled keyword access.

Well, actually, there's nothing at all "controlled" about keyword 
access. It's pretty much a pot shot, or, as I've called it before, a 
form of dumpster diving for information. There is a huge disconnect 
between the results of keyword searching and the expected functionality 
(read: user service) of controlled left-anchored headings, and I 
continue to be amazed that we've been living with this disconnect for 
decades without ever coming to an agreement that we need a solution.[1] 
Instead, great effort goes into modifying the descriptive cataloging 
rules, while no major changes have been made in subject access. I find 
this to be... well, stunning, in the sense that I'm pretty much stunned 
that this is the case.

kc

[1] See Lorcan Dempsey's approach in this slide deck: 
http://www.slideshare.net/lisld/irish-studies-making-library-data-work-harder 
. It has to do with "things", which is in good part what I first found 
interesting about LoD.
>
> kyle

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600