Jonathan:
I think we need to investigate other ways to display these more specific
headings, not just a flat alphabetical list of 500 'more specific terms'
(which I still don't think actually included the LCSH 'NT's!). One
obvious one is with some hieararchy, in 'classified' or 'systematic'
groups. As I tried to hypothetically demonstrate in my hypothetical
scenario originally. LCSH does not support this very systematically
though.
_________________________________________________
Jonathan, I think you are right about everything except this:
" not just a flat alphabetical list of 500 'more specific terms'(which I
still don't think actually included the LCSH 'NT's!)"
I just checked the physical LCSH "red books" from 2002 for NT under
"Linguistics". It appears to be more or less the same as the list I
pointed out - with some updated NTs as well.
The broader term (BT) for "Linguistics" is only one: "Language and
languages", which can be found in the 550 field of the "Linguistics"
authority record (thanks Mark for pointing this out):
550 __ |w g |a Language and languages
Regards,
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 Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:28 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification & Information
imperialism
I disagree with Thomas Mann on this. I suppose some actual user testing
would be the proof in the pudding to provide some evidence one way or
the toher.
It is not the large number of high-granularity LCSH's I have a problem
with. That's great, the more specific and granular we can afford to make
our indexing, the better.
It is instead the alphabetical listing of 500 of them I suspect is not
serving our users well. Who is going to look through an alphabetical
list of 500 headings to find the perfect one for them? Again, user
testing would be the evidence, but I suggest that even high level
scholars are not willing to do this in most cases. (and I want to
support high level scholars AS WELL AS everyone else, many of whom also
are well served by a high level of specificity). Maybe some (but not
all) librarians are.
I think we need to investigate other ways to display these more specific
headings, not just a flat alphabetical list of 500 'more specific terms'
(which I still don't think actually included the LCSH 'NT's!). One
obvious one is with some hieararchy, in 'classified' or 'systematic'
groups. As I tried to hypothetically demonstrate in my hypothetical
scenario originally. LCSH does not support this very systematically
though.
Jonathan
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Jonathan Rochkind said:
>
> I actually suggest that a flat list of several hundred 'more specific
> terms' to linguistics (that's what I get when I click on 'linguistics'
> in the LC 'authorities' website--it's still not clear to me _exactly_
> what this list represents in terms of LCSH semantics. One would hope
it
> would be more clear to the reference librarians theoretically
assisting
> users in figuring this out--but I'm not optimistic)--I suggest that a
> flat list of several hundred 'more specific terms' is not serving well
> even our most demanding users. I don't think it serves reference
> librarians well, even.
>
> Jonathan, I talked to Thomas Mann, the reference librarian at LC who
has
> written "Library Research Models" and "The Oxford Guide to Library
> Research" and he said:
>
> "I would say, on the contrary, that long list of Narrower Terms under
> Linguistics is _extremely_ useful in referenc work: it enables
> researchers to spot options within their subject areas that they did
not
> know were available to them. It enables reference librarians and
> researchers to recognize what we can't specify in advance--and NTs are
> especially useful because so many untrained users tend to frame their
> questions to begin with in overly-general terms. That is, they ask
not
> for what they really want, but for what they think they can get--they
> ask for overly-broad categories that they think will include what they
> need, rather than for what they need directly. The arrays of NT terms
> give them road maps that concretely demonstrate that they can be much
> more specific in the ways they formulate their questions in the first
> place--which leads to much more efficient and on-target results.
>
> The more help with provide readers (and reference librarians) with
long
> menus of options, both in cross-reference rosters and in browse
displays
> of precoordinated headings-with-subdivisions strings, the more we can
> recognize what we can't otherwise formulate clearly. (The recognition
> menus also include the cross-references and NT/RT terms that are
> alphabetically adjacent to other terms, but not formally
> cross-referenced to them.)"
>
> Regards,
> 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 Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:26 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification & Information
> imperialism
>
> I agree that we need to continue to serve our 'most demanding' users
> too--that is a big part of our mission, even if they are a small
> percentage of our total users. At the same time, we of course need to
> serve the greater percentage of our users ALSO.
>
> I actually suggest that a flat list of several hundred 'more specific
> terms' to linguistics (that's what I get when I click on 'linguistics'
> in the LC 'authorities' website--it's still not clear to me _exactly_
> what this list represents in terms of LCSH semantics. One would hope
it
> would be more clear to the reference librarians theoretically
assisting
> users in figuring this out--but I'm not optimistic)--I suggest that a
> flat list of several hundred 'more specific terms' is not serving well
> even our most demanding users. I don't think it serves reference
> librarians well, even.
>
> I suggest that more hiearchy in the system--and more systematic
> hiearchy--would serve even our most demanding users better.
> And yes, I DO think that it's our responsibility to make _as much as
> possible_ _as easy to use as possible_ from a user's desktop without
> neccesarily requiring librarian intermediation. For users on ALL parts
> of the spectrum, from high school students, to adults at varyng levels
> of education, to university freshman, to scholars of all levels. Does
> this mean we want to make the reference/research librarian
unneccesary?
> Surely not! The more we can enable a user to do without
intermediation,
> the more the research librarian is freed up for the advanced reseach
and
> research aid that they really want to be doing. There is no need to
> worry about job security. There were always be a role for the
> research/reference librarian. But meanwhile, YES, we should always be
> asking the question "How can we make this work better for the user."
> That's our responsibility.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>
>> Jonathan,
>> At this point, I don't think anyone is stereotyping your views as
"all
>> you need is Google." I think most of us on the list know that you're
>>
> not
>
>> pushing for that sort of over-simplification. You recognize the value
>>
> of
>
>> controlled vocabulary.
>>
>> You said that Nathan's list is way too long for most users. But as I
>> think he was suggesting in response, should our catalogs be designed
>>
> for
>
>> beginning users or "the most demanding [or advanced] users"? The
>>
> latter
>
>> are the people we'd like the beginning users to grow into eventually,
>>
> at
>
>> least in academic libraries. But I realize you're making another
>>
> point:
>
>> that for a lot of users, a list like that might be bewildering in its
>> complexity. It seems that's the role of the reference librarian,
>>
> though,
>
>> to help people work their way through confusing things. I know you're
>> not saying everything should be in the reach of a Google search box,
>>
> but
>
>> there does still seem to be something of an assumption that people
>> should be able to figure everything out from their desktop. They
>> shouldn't have to ask anyone for help.
>>
>> There was another point I thought I should get into related to
>> Bernhard's posts. It seems there is a sort of "information
>>
> imperialism"
>
>> in expecting the whole world to do things the way LC does them. And
>> sometimes I wonder if libraries around the world adopt LC practices,
>>
> not
>
>> because they're better, but simply because of the magnitude of LC,
its
>> systems and collections, and worldwide influence. At some point they
>> just decide the easiest thing to do is "go with the trend" and adopt
>> LC's system. It's unfortunate if a lot of work they did before on
>>
> other
>
>> systems is lost that way. Hopefully, some of it will be recouped
later
>> when adjustments to the dominant system have to be made, by bringing
>>
> in
>
>> their insights.
>>
>> This does kind of relate, in a way, to Nathan's point, too. (I don't
>> mean to imply Nathan would agree with this, but I think it's
related.)
>>
> I
>
>> think there is a legitimate question "why reinvent the wheel?" if
>> someone else has already created a system that provides sophisticated
>> access. Especially if it will be more expensive for you to create
>> something else. Why create a new classification system or subject
>> heading system if there are already some very full ones? That is,
>>
> unless
>
>> you really want something that costs less. I'm not saying cost is
your
>> motivation, Jonathan, though I wonder if it is for some who call for
>>
> new
>
>> systems. Some people really would like to base it all around that
>>
> Google
>
>> box, or something similar to it.
>> --Ted Gemberling
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:33 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification (was Re: [NGC4LIB]
>> Aristotle, "Everything is Miscellaneous", and the lib's "educative
>> function" )
>>
>> PS: I'd add that that list from Nathan is actually a good example of
>> that I'm talking about. That list (which is just an excerpt of
>> _highlights_) is WAY too long for most users. It's huge. And some of
>> them are at very different levels of granularity than others. I
would
>> like my controlled vocabulary to show the relations between those
>>
> terms,
>
>> the groupings they fall into, etc. If I don't know what one of them
>> means, those kinds of features can easily and quickly help me put the
>> term in context.
>>
>> And I believe that list is only of _subdivisions_ of Linguistics
>> (although for some reason the listing has omitted the conventional
>>
> "--"
>
>> seperators, making the actual semantic content even more confusing).
.
>> That's different than 'narrower terms'. I don't believe I have
>>
> currently
>
>> have access to any interface that lets me find any "NT"s of
>> "Linguistics", OR any of those subdivisions. Mapping them all out
>>
> would
>
>> probably give us a quite crazy graph. Not to mention the well-loved
>>
> "&"
>
>> LCSH's, which are not in fact subdivisions, like "Linguistics &
>> philosophy". Oops, but sometimes it's "and" instead of "&":
>> "Linguistics and communism"
>>
>> Those headings were designed to be viewed in a single alphabetic
list.
>> When that was the only way to present headings, they had to be
>>
> designed
>
>> that way, and they do a good job of it. It's not the only way to
>>
> present
>
>> headings anymore, but to do something different with LCSH is like
>> fighting with LCSH.
>>
>> PPS: If you think my point is "So all we need is Google", you are
>> missing it. That's not at all what I'm saying. We need a structured
>> controlled indexing language, professionally maintained and applied
>>
> (_in
>
>> addition to_ algorithmic analysis of full text and metadata AND
>> "tagging"). But we need to start analyzing WHAT we need from an
>> indexing language (some of hwich we've got, some of which we don't,
>>
> and
>
>> it's really a matter of degree anyway, not on or off), WHY we need
>>
> those
>
>> things (what features we want to support), and HOW to get there. Not
>> just defending LCSH and LCC and DDC as if they were sent down from
>> heaven or something. Even Ranganthan isn't actually God. We are
>> allowed to critically examine these things, 100 years after they were
>> founded, for a VERY different environment than the one we are now in.
>> That doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>>
> But
>
>> let's not leave the baby soaking in 100 year old fetid bathwater
>>
> either,
>
>> eh?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Certainly LCSH allows one to do all sorts of things, especially if
>>>
> the
>
>>> system supports it wisely.
>>>
>>> I think the lack of a good hiearchical structure gets in the way of
>>> doing a bunch of things with LCSH though. I believe someone wrote
>>> rerecently that LCSH, even if you pay attention to the BT/NT
>>>
>>>
>> 'thesaural'
>>
>>
>>> relationships (which most of our systems don't, and which they would
>>> need access to full LCSH authority MARC to do), that there are
around
>>> 30,000 "top level" terms. On top of this, we have hiearchy
>>>
> implemented
>
>>> in several different ways in LCSH (thesaural relationsihps,
>>> subdivisions, alphabetic proximity, inverse phrasing).
>>>
>>> This makes it difficult to provide the 'lay of the land' view, or
the
>>> segmenting of a large result set. I want to, for instance, have my
>>> system have this kind of a 'dialog' with the user: Gee, you got 500
>>> results for 'apache', 200 of them are about native americans, 100 of
>>> them are about military helicopters, and 100 of them are about web
>>> servers. Oh, you're intersted in military helicopters? Okay, within
>>> that, some of them are about engineering, some of them are about
>>> military history. Oh, you're interested in military history? Some of
>>> those are about Vietnam, some of those are about... whatever. How
can
>>>
>>>
>> I
>>
>>
>>> do this with LCSH? I can try, but the lack of a consistent and
>>> systematic hiearchical structure (with a more reasonable number of
>>>
> top
>
>>> level term--I don't know that they need to fit on 'two pages', the
>>> number of printed pages they fit on is irrelvant; what 'reasonable'
>>>
> is
>
>>> is yet to be determined, but I know it's not 30000) gets in the way.
>>>
>>> To be sure, LCSH can be used in all sorts of ways. I'm not trying to
>>>
>>>
>> say
>>
>>
>>> it's garbage or something. I am, however, interested in explroing
>>>
>>>
>> both:
>>
>>
>>> 1) What can we make our systems do with LCSH (and with DDC, and with
>>> LCC, and with anyting else we've already got a lot of assignments
>>>
> for)
>
>>> beyond what we are currently doing, to aid the user?
>>> 2) What walls do we hit when we try to do some of this stuff, what
do
>>>
>>>
>> we
>>
>>
>>> wish we could do better than these existing vocabulary/indexing
>>>
>>>
>> systems
>>
>>
>>> will let us do---and WHY, and what can be done (on a theoretical and
>>> practical) level to ameliorate this?
>>>
>>> I think there are useful things that can be done in these
directions,
>>> that you only can start when you stop defensively claiming that LCSH
>>>
>>>
>> (or
>>
>>
>>> LCC or DDC) are somehow perfect systems which can do everything just
>>> perfectly.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jonathan:
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan said:
>>>>
>>>> "but in fact, we want and NEED a classification (NOT just tagging,
>>>>
>>>>
>> but
>>
>>
>>>> a:
>>>> _controlled_ vocabulary; of subject, disciplinary, and genre
>>>> characteristics; with relations between terms of hiearchy,
>>>>
>>>>
>> association,
>>
>>
>>>> and possibly other relation types---that is, a classification)--for
>>>> reasons other than shelf order. These reasons include but are not
>>>> limited to:
>>>> * Bringing like things together in multiple ways in a interface
that
>>>>
>>>>
>> is
>>
>>
>>>> not the shelf.
>>>> * Allowing people to understand what is in a large corpus, or large
>>>> result set, by categorizing it in sets--to get a 'lay of the land'.
>>>> * To find more things like a thing already found
>>>> * To narrow or broaden one's search when one realizes that one
needs
>>>> more focused or more general materials."
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan, of course all the good points that you make here are
>>>>
>>>>
>> already
>>
>>
>>>> things that LCSH allows researchers looking for substantial
>>>>
> materials
>
>> to
>>
>>
>>>> do (with non-fiction *books*, not individual articles). It may not
>>>> allow them to do this to the extent that we want (i.e. all at once
>>>>
> on
>
>>>> the screen) and many researchers may not know how to do it - but
all
>>>>
>>>>
>> of
>>
>>
>>>> this can already be done using good library catalogs:
>>>>
>>>> * LCSH allows things to be explored (by clicking from here, to
>>>>
> there,
>
>> to
>>
>>
>>>> there) in multiple ways in an interface that is not the shelf.
>>>>
> There
>
>> is
>>
>>
>>>> a holistic matrix of interconnectivity and interdisciplinarity that
>>>> already exists
>>>>
>>>> (for example, with "linguistics" in LC's catalog, I can find books
>>>>
>>>>
>> also
>>
>>
>>>> about "World politics--1989-", "ontology", "English language--Old
>>>> English, ca. 450-1100", "Home and school", "Arabic language--Social
>>>> aspects", "Oral tradition", "Science", "Antiquities", "Truthfulness
>>>>
>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>> falsehood", "Literature--History and criticism", "African
>>>>
> languages",
>
>>>> "Language and culture", "Aesthetics", "Metamathematics", "Logic,
>>>> Symbolic and mathematical", "Archaeology", "Physical anthropology",
>>>> "Chomsky, Noam", etc.)
>>>>
>>>> * LCSH browse displays alphabetically categorize subject headings
>>>>
> and
>
>>>> allow people to see what is available in a certain disciplinary
>>>>
> area,
>
>>>> subject, or topic - to get a "lay of the land"
>>>>
>>>> (Highlights I was able to quickly get from LC browse list:
>>>> Linguistics
>>>> Linguistics Bibliography. (78 hits)
>>>> Linguistics China. (30 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Congresses. (410 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Dictionaries. (57 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Dictionaries Arabic. (7 hits)
>>>> Linguistics, Experimental (10 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Field work (11 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Germany History (7 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Handbooks, manuals, etc. (12 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Historiography. (19 hits)
>>>> Linguistics History (166 hits)
>>>> Linguistics History 19th century (32 hits)
>>>> Linguistics History 20th century (51 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Methodology (104 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Methodology Handbooks, manuals, etc. (10 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Periodicals. (310 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Philosophy. (43 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Problems, exercises, etc. (15 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Research Hungary History. (5 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Research Soviet Union (15 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Statistical methods (51 hits)
>>>> Linguistics Terminology. (50 hits)
>>>>
>>>> Note: Google might be interested in "Linguistics Statistical
>>>>
>>>>
>> methods",
>>
>>
>>>> you think? Also, as Thomas Mann has noted, it would not be hard to
>>>>
>>>>
>> put
>>
>>
>>>> popular and substantial web resources [or things like blogs even]
in
>>>> this list)
>>>>
>>>> * obviously, LCSH allow a person to find more things like a thing
>>>> already found - and tags and user recommendations would only
>>>>
>>>>
>> *increase*
>>
>>
>>>> the possibilities - even for research work, increasingly
>>>> interdisciplinary as it is.
>>>>
>>>> * In a good catalog, the search can be narrowed by clicking on the
>>>> subject headings in the browse list.
>>>>
>>>> (For example, click on "linguistics" in the LC's catalog and you
get
>>>>
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>> following narrower terms:
>>>>
>>>> Acceptability (Linguistics)
>>>> Analogy (Linguistics)
>>>> Anaphora (Linguistics)
>>>> Anthropological linguistics
>>>> Applied linguistics
>>>> Archaisms (Linguistics)
>>>> Areal linguistics
>>>> Asymmetry (Linguistics)
>>>> Binary principle (Linguistics)
>>>> Biolinguistics
>>>> Classification Books Linguistics
>>>> Classifiers (Linguistics)
>>>> Code switching (Linguistics)
>>>> Communism and linguistics
>>>> Componential analysis (Linguistics)
>>>> Connotation (Linguistics)
>>>> Context (Linguistics)
>>>> Contrastive linguistics
>>>> Creativity (Linguistics)
>>>> Deep structure (Linguistics)
>>>> Diglossia (Linguistics)
>>>> Distinctive features (Linguistics)
>>>> Economy (Linguistics)
>>>> Emphasis (Linguistics)
>>>> Field theory (Linguistics)
>>>> Formalization (Linguistics)
>>>> Functionalism (Linguistics)
>>>> Grammar, Comparative and general
>>>> Grammaticality (Linguistics)
>>>> Graphemics
>>>> Hesitation form (Linguistics)
>>>> Hierarchy (Linguistics)
>>>> Historical linguistics
>>>> Idioms
>>>> Juncture (Linguistics)
>>>> Linguistic models
>>>> Markedness (Linguistics)
>>>> Mathematical linguistics
>>>> Minimal pair (Linguistics)
>>>> Modality (Linguistics)
>>>> Neurolinguistics
>>>> Neutralization (Linguistics)
>>>> Paralinguistics
>>>> Parallelism (Linguistics)
>>>> Phonetics
>>>> Prosodic analysis (Linguistics)
>>>> Psycholinguistics
>>>> Redundancy (Linguistics)
>>>> Reference (Linguistics)
>>>> Register (Linguistics)
>>>> Sociolinguistics
>>>> Speech acts (Linguistics)
>>>> Structural linguistics
>>>> Substratum (Linguistics)
>>>> Surface structure (Linguistics)
>>>> Transmutation (Linguistics)
>>>> Typology (Linguistics)
>>>> Universals (Linguistics)
>>>> Word (Linguistics)
>>>> Government-binding theory (Linguistics)
>>>> Cohesion (Linguistics)
>>>> Autosegmental theory (Linguistics)
>>>> Definiteness (Linguistics)
>>>> Naturalness (Linguistics)
>>>> Pejoration (Linguistics)
>>>> Paradigm (Linguistics)
>>>> Genericalness (Linguistics)
>>>> Forensic linguistics
>>>> Iconicity (Linguistics)
>>>> Scope (Linguistics)
>>>> Ecolinguistics
>>>> Sequence (Linguistics)
>>>> Perspective (Linguistics)
>>>> Fossilization (Linguistics)
>>>> Motion in language
>>>> Direction in language
>>>> Politeness (Linguistics)
>>>> Subjectivity (Linguistics)
>>>> Opacity (Linguistics)
>>>> Gradience (Linguistics)
>>>>
>>>> The "broader term", Language and Languages, is currently
unavailable
>>>> [needs more funding]...)
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, picking linguistics also helps me show the importance of
>>>> having some highly trained people doing cataloging work for this or
>>>>
>>>>
>> that
>>
>>
>>>> disciplinary niche. Certainly, there are many subjects that have
>>>>
>>>>
>> more
>>
>>
>>>> "popular" narrower terms, for example, as well!
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, these incredible services are all available, to some
>>>>
>>>>
>> extent,
>>
>>
>>>> now. As it stands though, perhaps it takes curious people who are
>>>> former detectives (like Thomas Mann at the LOC) - and perhaps those
>>>>
>>>>
>> with
>>
>>
>>>> a solid liberal arts education - to really utilize them to their
>>>>
>>>>
>> fullest
>>
>>
>>>> extent. Things can almost certainly be made much easier, as Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>> Pace
>>
>>
>>>> and Eric Hatcher have shown. Perhaps also with changes to MARC
>>>>
>>>>
>> format.
>>
>>
>>>> Of course, in order to make this work, I think we need more quality
>>>> tagging not just from users, but catalogers (LCSH) as well.
>>>>
>>>> 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 Jonathan Rochkind
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 9:42 PM
>>>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>>>> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification (was Re: [NGC4LIB]
>>>> Aristotle, "Everything is Miscellaneous", and the lib's "educative
>>>> function" )
>>>>
>>>> What are the points of a classification? I submit that there are
>>>> several. And only ONE of them requires the kind of compact notation
>>>>
>>>>
>> that
>>
>>
>>>> Bernhard assumes--shelf order. Certainly, as long as we need to put
>>>> books on shelves (and I think this will be for a long long time) we
>>>>
>>>>
>> will
>>
>>
>>>> need a shelf order. and so long as we need a shelf order, it serves
>>>>
>>>>
>> us
>>
>>
>>>> well to put like books together (recognizing that books can be like
>>>>
>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>> unlike in many differnet ways, along many differnet axes--but we
>>>>
>>>>
>> still
>>
>>
>>>> need to pick just one for a shelf order. Just because that's the
way
>>>>
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>> physical world works, no problem).
>>>>
>>>> This is all true, and just the way it is.
>>>>
>>>> but in fact, we want and NEED a classification (NOT just tagging,
>>>>
> but
>
>> a:
>>
>>
>>>> _controlled_ vocabulary; of subject, disciplinary, and genre
>>>> characteristics; with relations between terms of hiearchy,
>>>>
>>>>
>> association,
>>
>>
>>>> and possibly other relation types---that is, a classification)--for
>>>> reasons other than shelf order. These reasons include but are not
>>>> limited to:
>>>> * Bringing like things together in multiple ways in a interface
that
>>>>
>>>>
>> is
>>
>>
>>>> not the shelf.
>>>> * Allowing people to understand what is in a large corpus, or large
>>>> result set, by categorizing it in sets--to get a 'lay of the land'.
>>>> * To find more things like a thing already found
>>>> * To narrow or broaden one's search when one realizes that one
needs
>>>> more focused or more general materials.
>>>>
>>>> None of these purposes, in and of themselves, in fact require a
>>>> notation suitable for shelf ordering. What DO they require,
>>>>
>>>>
>> especially
>>
>>
>>>> when we are trying to fulfill these purposes in a digital
interface?
>>>> What sorts of interfaces might we want to present to users, and
what
>>>> _formal features_ of a classificatory controlled vocabulary assist
>>>>
> or
>
>>>> get in the way of providing them?
>>>>
>>>> This is what we need to discover, by emperical research as well as
>>>> intellecutal analysis.
>>>>
>>>> LCC or Dewey (or LCSH) are not the end of hte road. They are the
>>>> beginning. They were designed for an environment we are no longer
>>>> constrained to. We can do more. What can we do that's more with
>>>>
> these
>
>>>> existing systems? What might we WISH to do, but these existing
>>>>
>>>>
>> systems
>>
>>
>>>> wont' let us do in a reasonable systmetic way (becuase if you
aren't
>>>> oging ot be systematic and reasonagbly consistent--then you might
as
>>>> well just be using tagging, indeed)? This is what we need to
>>>>
>>>>
>> discover.
>>
>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Spalding wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The organization into tens is arbitrary and limiting. The
"tree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>
>>>>>> knowledge" (if there is a tree) is on no better terms with ten
>>>>>>
> than
>
>>>>>> time is with twelve. These are arbitrary; Dewey uses tens to make
>>>>>> numbers shorter and nothing else. Every level has a choice,
>>>>>> Procrustean hilarity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, what might be a good number for the first level of a new
>>>>> classification? If we agree, that is, that we need a new one.
>>>>> Under 25? Then we might use a letter for a code.
>>>>> More, up to 100 perhaps? Then a 2-digit-number might be
>>>>>
> appropriate.
>
>>>>> (In the Netherlands and in Germany, the Dutch "Basisclassificatie"
>>>>> is widely used. It has 89 main classes, each with less than 100
>>>>> subclasses. Notations thus look like this:
>>>>> 54.72 Artificial Intelligence (54 = Computer Science)
>>>>> (The level of detail is of course much less than Dewey, but its
aim
>>>>> is not to replace Dewey but to provide a broad categorization. It
>>>>> can be useful to refine keyword searches or to arrange large
>>>>> result sets into manageable chapters. The aim is not to sort the
>>>>> world out but to arrange sets of documents.)
>>>>>
>>>>> With this question sorted out, then what headlines (broad subject
>>>>> categories) might be appropriate for our time and age?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, why not take this on now and make an attempt to define
>>>>> at least the top level of a new classification - if all existing
>>>>> systems are as deficient as they appear to be. There must be
>>>>> some approaches somewhere already - maybe even a good one.
>>>>> Below the top level, there may be existing subject classifications
>>>>> that could be re-used here. At least in some subjects, like
>>>>> mathematics or physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> B. Eversberg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>>> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>>>> The Sheridan Libraries
>>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>>> 410.516.8886
>>>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>>> The Sheridan Libraries
>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>> 410.516.8886
>>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>> The Sheridan Libraries
>> Johns Hopkins University
>> 410.516.8886
>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Mon Jun 11 2007 - 09:39:51 EDT