Diane-
This is true, though few existing bibliographic records carry
multiple call numbers from the same classification scheme. Except, of
course, in cases where the cataloging agency disagreed with the call
number on the incoming record and added their own in a separate field
(090/092 in OCLC records). More importantly, most current integrated
library systems use the "spine" call numbers from item level and/or
holdings records for call number searching, as this allows for a shelf
list order display of the particular library's holdings. That doesn't
mean that one could not create a separate index which might search 050,
055, 060, 070, 082, 086, 090 and so on, but these would mostly contain
call numbers corresponding to the main topic of the work (I'm sure some
UDC library will challenge me on this!). One place where this is not
the case is in 052 (Geographic classification), used with cartographic
materials, where the usual practice is to assign a class for each area
depicted on a sheet with several insert maps. We have the ability here
to keyword search call numbers from the above fields, but only in the
staff interface where it is sometimes used by catalogers who have copy
which has a Dewey or NLM number, but doesn't have a corresponding LC #.
They can search the 082/092 or the 060 for that Dewey or NLM number and
then find corresponding LC numbers from the retrieved records.
I will also note that the rule on first LC subject heading bearing a
one-on-one relationship to the selected call number is sometimes more of
an ideal than it is a reality. Often the subject heading that best
describes the overall topic of the work will not have an equivalent call
number, causing the cataloger to have to choose a call number that
corresponds more to a second or third subject heading. Obversely, the
call number which best describes the work may not have a single
equivalent subject heading either.
None of this prevents catalogers from assigning multiple class numbers
from the same scheme. I believe that all call number fields, from
050-099, are repeatable. Coming up with a means for using them for
faceted searching might be a job for this group.
Charley
Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> In the physical book world where classification was used primarily for
> shelving location, the one-class-number rule made sense, but in the
> digital world, we've been released from those artificial limits and
> can once again look at LCC as subject access/ different/ but not
> inherently less important than LCSH.
>
>> Apart from that, if you are looking at ranking, a few bits of info:
>> 1. When creating a MARC record, the first LC subject heading on the
>> record is supposed to be one-to-one with the single LC classification
>> number assigned to the item. I don't know if catalogers still do that,
>> but it was true at one time. That would presumably make the first
>> LCSH field be "more important" than the others.
> This was certainly the common practice in the past, but it's important
> to remember that some systems imposed other kinds of order on multiple
> subjects, so it's not necessarily always the case. And of course,
> where classification doesn't exist or is used in multiples (and not
> for shelving), relying on position as an indicator of importance will
> be less reliable.
--
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Charley Pennell mailto:cpennell_at_unity.ncsu.edu
Principal Cataloger for Metadata voice: (919)515-2743
Metadata and Cataloging Department fax: (919)515-7292
NCSU Libraries, Box 7111
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
Adjunct Librarian, Memorial University of Newfoundland
World Wide Web: http://www.ibiblio.org/hillwilliam/chuckhome.html
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Received on Mon Feb 05 2007 - 17:53:05 EST