Karen Coyle:
"I think his criticism of LCSH is that it is atomistic -- it gives you
an entry into a topic but it doesn't relate items in the library to each
other."
In one sense this is true (atomistic), but let us not forget that LCSH
*do* relate items in the library with each other. Even though an item
can only be located in one physical space (its classification number -
which should correspond to the first subject heading) - additional
subject headings allow one to see *interdisciplinary connections*.
Therefore, a book may be determined to be primarily about philosophy,
and will therefore go in the philosophy section on the library shelf,
but if it is also largely about science, that can and should be
indicated by the subject headings. One can find all kinds of
interesting interdisciplinary connections by clicking around this
"interconnected web" of subject headings. This is not the same kind of
relation that Karen emphasizes in her post (namely being able to trace
the links [relations] between actual, particular works and authors,
which I agree, sounds like bibliography, and has exciting
possibilities), but it is hardly insignificant. I am amazed by the
kinds of interesting connections between subjects (which I could never
have envisioned) that I can find in large catalogues (like LC) by
exploring the interconnectedness of the subject headings - talk about
serendipity! There is a ton of potential here too (think what you could
do with 3-D graphics and clustering software), I think.
Karen Coyle:
"Call numbers do that but for some reason we haven't played much with
giving people an interesting navigation of the classified catalog,
something that I think has potential. It would undoubtedly be easier to
do with Dewey, which is more hierarchical than LC classification."
It will be interesting to see if the following incident gives birth to
others:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0530nodewey0530.html
(found via Library Stuff).
I don't think this bodes well for the pedagogical tradition of
librarianship. I suspect that pretty soon, valuable quality
organization might just be "elites only" (those who can afford it):
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:58 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
This is from my blog notes on the first LC meeting, the one at Google.
After describing how he does research and why he does research
(everything from moving into new territory to looking for an inexpensive
book to require for his class), he gave these as things he needs to help
him with research:
- tools that recognize existing clusters of knowledge; if you find a
book using lcsh, you probably already know it existed. tool that
recognizes the conversation the book was in. those that were written
after the book came out and have continued the conversation.
- tools that know lines of descent; chronology of publications; later
readers determine connection between texts
- tools that find unknown connections (full text search; topic maps?)
- tools that produce serendipity -- hidden connections.
- tools that inform me of authority
- tools that know about real world usage (those who bought x bought y;
how many people checked this out?)
- tools that know about the sociology of knowledge; the pedigrees of
authors: who were they trained by, how long ago; how trustworthy is this
institution?
As he spoke, I was thinking that his ideal tool is what I would call a
bibliography. It would give the "best books" in an area of study, would
describe various branches of thought, would put a document in an
intellectual context, would tell you what item was most cited, most used
in classes, most read. Authors would have "reviews" -- the founder of
this line of thinking; Harvard PhD; journalist writing for the NY Post.
They could also have "popularity" ratings, such as the timelines that
WorldCat Identities uses.
I can also see things on his list that could be machine-generated, such
as topic maps based on full text that would bring together documents in
a serendipitous fashion.
I think his criticism of LCSH is that it is atomistic -- it gives you an
entry into a topic but it doesn't relate items in the library to each
other. Call numbers do that but for some reason we haven't played much
with giving people an interesting navigation of the classified catalog,
something that I think has potential. It would undoubtedly be easier to
do with Dewey, which is more hierarchical than LC classification.
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Thu May 31 2007 - 11:31:24 EDT