David,
Very good point. I thought about the classifications, but didn't
mention them because my supposition was that they weren't as
"comprehensive" as LCSH. I may be wrong. It's hard to compare
numerically because both classification and subject heading schemes
allow for expansion (by using tables, floating subdivisions, etc.).
Laura
Bigwood, David wrote:
>Laura,
>
>
>
>>3. Library of Congress subject headings are the only truly
>>
>>
>comprehensive English language subject controlled vocabulary, but they
>don't work well enough.
>
>I have to disagree with this. Remember we have LCC and Dewey. Both are
>rich in terms and have a hierarchical structure. We need not make the
>user know and work the class numbers, those could be machine read to
>deliver the results and other suggestions. A user enters Asteroids the
>machine searches 523.44 and then offers broader terms based on 523.4.
>The user never need see the numbers.
>
>Even better the machine searches for 523.44 in the class number fields
>and for asteroids in the 650 field after validating the term in the
>subject authority file.
>
>There is no need to only assign one class number to an item. We could
>assign as many as needed, just like subject headings. One would be
>needed to "mark and park" but the others could provide access points.
>
>Sincerely,
>David Bigwood
>bigwood_at_lpi.usra.edu
>Lunar & Planetary Institute
>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/library/whats_new.shtml
>Catalogablog
>http://catalogablog.blogspot.com
>
>
--
*Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Robert W. Woodruff Library, Room 128
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga. 30322
phone (404) 727-6888
fax 404-727-0053*
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 13:30:19 EDT