On 4/6/16 9:51 AM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> 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
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
