Absolutely, and what I said somewhere above in this thread:

"Note that Google does not give users an answer to this question because there is no larger context, no inherent organization. Google does not do knowledge organization. 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?). "

That we do not make use of these relationships means that 1) a whole lot of vocabulary development time is utterly wasted and 2) users are not getting the full benefit of the relationships that have already been established. Yes, LCSH is less than perfect, but it is even more "less than perfect" when we ignore what knowledge organization that it does provide.

kc

On 4/14/16 7:29 AM, Stephen Hearn wrote:
One factor that current search systems tend to overlook is that LCSH, all
of it, is intended intended to be a first class search target.  The LCSH
headings that get into bib records are only the tip of the iceberg.  The
LCSH authority for "Cuba--History--Invasion, 1961" includes a 450 "see
from" reference for "Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba, 1961." Real use of LCSH
would search the reference vocabulary as well as the preferred term
headings which get into bib records.  Working with LCSH bib headings alone
misses the point of a sophisticated controlled vocabulary, where much of
the terminological and semantic richness for searching is contained in
"see" and "see also" references, complex references and scope and other
kinds of notes.  The controlled vocabulary itself needs to be integrated
into search results so that searches call up not only bib records with a
matching heading but vocabulary records which can expand the user's search
vocabulary and point to related controlled terms outside those generated by
the retrieved bib records' themselves. LCSH's weakness is that it is
designed for left-anchored browse searching, which has fallen out of favor;
but the idea that the full semantic structure of a controlled vocabulary
needs to be foregrounded in search results is still valid.

Stephen



On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Kent Fitch <kent.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it's exploring what advantage there may be of using overlapping search
terms to help bridge the differences between LCSH and "common usage", or
"what the searcher is thinking of" that motivated this subject display.

For example, the person-in-the-street would reasonably think that when
searching a library catalogue where people have gone to the bother of
subject-classifying, then the results on searching "bay of pigs" would
return everything relevant, even if that string didn't appear in the title,
even if the full text wasn't being searched.

*http://ll01.nla.gov.au/search.jsp?searchTerm=bay+of+pigs
<http://ll01.nla.gov.au/search.jsp?searchTerm=bay+of+pigs>*

But LCSH organises that content under "Cuba -- History -- Invasion, 1961".
There's a high correlation/overlap between "bay of pigs" results and this
subject, which is why this subject string is highlighted in the prototype
results.  But a search on that subject, removing "bay of pigs" as a search
term, returns, for example, from 1962 "The Cuban Invasion : the chronicle
of a disaster / by Karl E. Meyer and Tad Szulc ".

http://ll01.nla.gov.au/show.jsp?rid=000000643156

  This isn't returned on a search for "bay of pigs" (on the prototype, or on
Trove). Maybe "bay of pigs" wasn't even "a thing" when this book was
catalogued, or, if it was, it was thought to be an ephemeral description.

On Trove (and I guess most library catalogues), by paying carefully
attention and tallying the subjects assigned to a "bay of pigs" results,
you may eventually realise a good search may be:

  "Cuba Invasion 1961" OR "bay of pigs"

because there are LOTS of resources I'd want to know about if I were
searching for "bay of pigs" that don't have an assigned subject string
"Cuba -- History -- Invasion, 1961" for various reasons, such as a tendency
not to assign more subjects that you want cards in the catalogue!  (eg
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/13249747 )

I guess a better approach is to do this automatically for the searcher: to
note "bay of pigs" results have a high but not total correlation with
results assigned LCSH's "Cuba -- History -- Invasion, 1961", and I guess
that's one of the attractions of searching on Google: that we take this
type of "magic" for granted.

Kent Fitch


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Harper, Cynthia <char...@vts.edu> wrote:

 From a librarian’s perspective, we know searching is messy – a researcher
can’t hope to find the perfect subject heading that will reveal all their
related content in one term.  Searching is exploring through overlapping
terms, and compiling a bibliography from the pearls found in the process.
This interface makes clearer what the related terms may be, given a borad
term like practical theology.  And it’s so nice that it combines the
classification structure with the subject headings.

Cindy Harper
@vts.edu<http://vts.edu>

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:
CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>] On Behalf Of Kent Fitch
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:17 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH, Bisac, facets, hierarchy?
About ten years ago, I was wondering how to make the structure in LCSH,
or
at least how it was encoded in MARC subject tags more useful, so when
implementing a prototype for a new library catalogue at the National
Library of Australia, I tried using the subject tag contents to
represent a
hierarchy, then counted the number of hits against parts of that
hierarchy
for a given search and then represented the subject tags in a hierarchy
with hit counts.   One of the motivations was to help expose to the
searcher how works relevant to their search may have been
LCSH-subject-catalogued.

I'm a programmer, not a UI person, so the formatting of theresults were
fairly primitive, but that prototype from ten years ago ("Library Labs")
is
still running.

For example, search results for /ancient egypt/



http://ll01.nla.gov.au/search.jsp?searchTerm=ancient+egypt&keywords=0.5&keywordWildcard=0.05&titlePhrase=12.0&authorPhrase=9.0&subjectPhrase=9.0&genrePhrase=9.0&titleWords=4.0&authorWords=3.0&subjectWords=3.0&genreWords=3.0&titleExact=18.0&authorExact=15.0
/computer art/



http://ll01.nla.gov.au/search.jsp?searchTerm=computer+art&keywords=0.5&keywordWildcard=0.05&titlePhrase=12.0&authorPhrase=9.0&subjectPhrase=9.0&genrePhrase=9.0&titleWords=4.0&authorWords=3.0&subjectWords=3.0&genreWords=3.0&titleExact=18.0&authorExact=15.0
/history of utah/



http://ll01.nla.gov.au/search.jsp?searchTerm=history+of+utah&keywords=0.5&keywordWildcard=0.05&titlePhrase=12.0&authorPhrase=9.0&subjectPhrase=9.0&genrePhrase=9.0&titleWords=4.0&authorWords=3.0&subjectWords=3.0&genreWords=3.0&titleExact=18.0&authorExact=15.0
This prototype also explored a subject hierarchy which had been of
interest to the NLA's Assistant Director-General, Dr Warwick Cathro, over
many years, the RLG "Conspectus" hierarchy, which I guess was not unlike
BISAC in its aims.  It is shown further down the right-hand column.

Both the subject hierarchy and Conspectus were interesting, but neither
made it into the eventual production search system, Trove, implemented at
the NLA, in which subject faceting or hierarchy is absent from results
display:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=ancient+egypt
http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=computer+art
http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=history+of+utah

The "Library Labs" prototype is running on a small VM, so searching may
be
slow, and it hasnt been updated with any content since 2006..  But maybe
the way it attempted to provide subject grouping and encourage narrowing
of
search by LCSH or exploring using LCSH rather than the provided search
terms may trigger some more experiments.

Kent Fitch

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Mark Watkins <m...@thehawaiiproject.com
<mailto:m...@thehawaiiproject.com>>
wrote:

<head starting to swim> :)

sounds like there is a lot of useful metadata but somewhat scattered
amongst various fields, depending on when the item was cataloged or
tagged.
Which seems to correspond to anecdotal surfing of the Harvard data.

I guess my new task is to build something that aggregates and
reconciles portions of LCSH, LCFGT, and GSAFD :).

Thanks for the additional perspective!





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Reply via email to