> One question resulting from this is, of course, should authority
> control as we know it, labor-intensive as it is, be abandoned in favor
> of increasing the input of additional, "enriching" text matter? IOW,
> are those reliable queries still needed? Cutter has been dead for over
> a hundred years, after all, and both LCSH, LCC and Dewey do appear to be
> aging...
The operable phrase for me here is "as we know it." As we design systems,
the ability to accommodate less taxing taxonomies and
not-quite-so-authoritative authority tables, plus some automated entity
extraction, would be nice. (Bad sentence. Give me coffee, STAT!)
> In yet other words: do we still need reliable queries, and for what
> types of criteria - or not? [What are the types of queries that
> yield reliable results in Google? Is there demand for more?]
That's a bit of a false dichotomy because it implies that alternatives to
LCSH are inherently unreliable and to a degree that adversely impacts
findability.
Karen G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Mon Jun 12 2006 - 10:27:55 EDT