Re: Relevancy-ranking LCSH?

From: Hahn, Harvey <hhahn_at_nyob>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:42:33 -0600
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
|The biggest advantage of a hierarchic classification (and Dewey is
|conceptually better in this regard than LC) over verbal subject
|indexing is that truncation can very usefully broaden a search. You
|just cannot grab all the entries for birds in a subject access, but
|in a Dewey access, you can: 598.

Possibly the primary problem with classification schemes in general is
that as knowledge and concepts appear, change in importance, and/or
disappear, the schemes have to be constantly updated.  Every issue of
DDC and updates in between have additions, relocations, and even
occasional "phoenixes".  Am I incorrect in thinking that this could
raise havoc in classified catalogs?  Conceptually, I very much like
classified catalogs (as I said here or elsewhere, I used the one at the
John Crerar Library when I was in library school); it's the practical
aspects that I'm wondering about.  (I would think that the computerized
aspects wouldn't be too much of a problem, although I suppose the
physical aspects would be no worse than reclassifying materials now when
major changes occur to an area.)

Harvey

--
===========================================
Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
847/506-2644 - FX: 847/506-2650 - Email: hhahn(at)ahml(dot)info
OML & Scripts web pages: http://www.ahml.info/oml/
Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 11:03:30 EST