LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2016

CODE4LIB April 2016

Subject:

Re: Google can give you answers, but librarians give you the right answers

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:35:45 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ....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?
>

All of the above. The number of resources continues to grow, fewer people
assign subject headings, and the amount of training those people have
declines. The norm nowadays is for libraries to perform little to no
original cataloging themselves. Especially vendor created record sets are
full of records that lack any LCSH headings, let alone good ones.

.

> 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"?
>

LCSH is based on literary warrant, meaning that a subject doesn't exist
until needed for an actual item in front of someone at the Library of
Congress or a SACO library. Rather than relate things in a conceptual
universe, LCSH expands on an ad hoc basis.
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/sacogenfaq.html describes the basic
process. LCSH isn't a bad general vocab, but it's not good in specialized
areas because neither the catalogers nor those creating headings have the
expertise to assign helpful subjects. Patrons and staff where I work regard
the headings as unhelpful noise so we don't display LCSH facets (MeSH is a
better fit for our needs).


>   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.


People like the imagery of choosing from a browse list, but they're not
going to guess the left anchored headings because the preferred terminology
and word order often won't be the same as what they're thinking. When they
do type everything right, the absolutely insane numbers of unique
precoordinated subject strings returned would be overwhelming unless there
is little on the subject they seek.

I agree that using subject cataloging rules designed for for filing paper
cards in a computerized environment is insane. But even if the rules were
updated, fixing existing records or creating rich relationships between
LCSH terms would both be impossible. The most practical thing to do is to
do a keyword search on the headings and then return facets based only on
650 $a (i.e. and ignore the rest)   -- which is what most catalogs do.

kyle

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager