Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>> Notations need to be human-understandable, learnable, and compact,
>> shelf-order or no.
> I'm not sure this is so, if you are suggesting that the need for a
> shelf-order has little imapct on the requirements for notation. What do
> you think of LCSH's 'notation'? I suppose it does have one, the terms
> themselves and the sub-division structure.
>
I forgot "hierarchy". LCSH does have some, it also has some facetting
(various subdivisions), but enough of it? Or might we not need more?
The hierarchy seldom extends across more than two levels. Esp., there
is not a top level that could be rendered on, say, two pages. This is,
as I said, something we need first, for a new start.
And LCSH is English. Outdated English more often than not. A
classification's notations ought to be less rigidly tied to language.
OK, the LCSH authority record ID numbers are numbers! But these reflect
no hierarchy as DDC does. The notations need to be pronouncable, or
speakable, orally communicable in a way that reflects their structure,
that's maybe the greatest virtue of DDC or UDC, less so of LCC.
Humans have to work with it, please don't overlook that, so it must
smoothly integrate into their colloquial shop talk. This is something
that MARC also does, by the way, and which XML apostles tend to
overlook. It should work as much as possible without the aid of
software tools.
But OK, present a workable and convincing model of a new-age
classification, and we can talk.
B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Jun 07 2007 - 08:14:54 EDT