FW: Yes but

Sorry--I sent this just to Karen the first time. Sorry for the
duplication. Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:13 PM
To: 'kgs_at_bluehighways.com'
Subject: RE: [NGC4LIB] Yes but

Karen, let me see if I can give an example of the kind of thing I'm
saying is important, based on my own poor knowledge of the issues.

Let's say someone is studying Judaism and the difference between its
concepts of Messiahship and those of Christianity. It's noteworthy that
in LCSH, there's a difference between the headings "Jewish messianic
movements" and "Messianic Judaism." The latter is actually a form of
Christianity: "Here are entered works on the modern religious movement
that holds that it is possible to identify completely with Jewish
culture and religion and to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Works on
various movements throughout Jewish history that strive for an
independent political existence of the Jewish people under a Davidic
leader and world-wide renewal are entered under ǂa Jewish messianic
movements."

Apparently that sort of confusion is unavoidable, given the fact that
several religions have adopted the term messiah. LCSH helps us find our
way through it by the use of scope notes.

Now, I suppose one could say that the distinction between these uses of
"messianic" and "Judaism" or "Jewish" will be clear enough if the
researcher simply does enough reading of the sources available to her.
But as I think Nathan was saying, she will do that more efficiently if
we do some of the work for her and provide these controlled vocabularies
and classifications, so that she may find the "most substantial work" in
the subject area. For me it's more a matter of vocabulary than software.
I'm open to lots of different softwares as long as they don't eliminate
vocabulary we need.

Here's another example that shows the important role of librarians as
information "experts." A lot of people today are under the impression
that "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are equivalent terms. Generally Inuit is
considered more appropriate to use. NLM's Medical Subject Headings
accept that equivalence and establish Inuit as the term. But if you look
at the LCSH hierarchy, you find that Eskimo is actually a broader term
than Inuit. Here's the scope note for Inuit:

"Here are entered works limited to the indigenous Arctic peoples of
Greenland, Canada, and northern Alaska. Works discussing collectively
the Inuit peoples and the related Eskimo peoples of southern and western
Alaska and adjacent regions of Siberia, or works for which the
individual group cannot be identified, are entered under ǂa Eskimos."

Probably 70-80% of all Eskimos in the world are Inuits, but having spent
one summer in Western Alaska, I'm aware there is another 20-30% who are
Yupiks. The only term we have for both groups is Eskimos. This shows the
close collaboration LCSH subject specialists have with people with
knowledge of subject areas. Just looking at the LCSH syndetic structure
is informative for a researcher. Keywords cannot provide that
information without a lot more work on her part.
        --Ted Gemberling, UAB Lister Hill Library

Not an official statement of the Lister Hill Library











There is also an established heading "Messiah--Judaism": "Here are
entered works on the concept of the Messiah in post-Biblical Judaism."
Compare that with the scope note for "Messiah":

"Here are entered general works on the concept of a messiah. Works on
prophecies in the Old Testament concerning a messiah are entered under
ǂa Messiah--Prophecies. ǂi Works on Jesus Christ as the Messiah are
entered under ǂa Jesus Christ--Messiahship. ǂi Works on prophecies made
by Jesus Christ are entered under ǂa Jesus Christ--Prophecies."

So you see there are subtle relationships between all those headings
that have been explored by librarians under the influence of experts in
those subjects.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:41 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Yes but

A fallacy I keep hearing is that a complex tool is required for complex
research. Yet what is complex about research is the process of winnowing
and
directing knowledge discovery, and I haven't seen any convincing
evidence
that transmitting the information for how to successfully research a
topic
is improved by software environments so difficult they must be learned.
It
would appear the opposite is true: when the activity is complex, tools
must
be simplified. Another fallacy seems to be that the role of the
librarian is
to explain the functions of complex software. I hope we have a more
stable
role in the pedagogical firmament than that.

In any event, this discussion is all so many angels on heads of pins.

K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com