Ted:
Jonathan's idea of using an algorithm to create a hierarchy from
ClassWeb and the DDC and LCC class numbers might be a good thing to
pursue. But I would say that the chances of success seem higher with
MeSH than with LCSH, because the sheer size of LCC means that hierarchy
just isn't as clear. There is no hierarchical relation between Medicine
(R) and Human biology and Life sciences (both presumably QH), for
example, while all specific mental disorders fit into WM (Psychiatry) in
the NLM classification.
I wonder if this is in fact a strength, not a weakness. The fact that
the primary LCSH subject heading assigned to a material does not
necessarily determine what its classification (discipline area) location
is speaks to the interdisciplinarity and interconnectedness of the LC
system (yes, everything necessarily has only one place for the shelf,
but even here, it could possibly go here or there, and no one is making
overly restrictive philosophical determinations about the absolute,
uncontested place for something in a hierarchy) Of course, not knowing
nearly as much about computers, software, algorithms, etc. as I would
like to, I do not know much about specifically why this might be a big
disadvantage for programmers who might attempt to take this on...
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 Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:25 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification & Information
imperialism
David,
I work in a MeSH library, so I thought I'd do a little work to see how
MeSH and LCSH compare on some things. It may be hard to compare
sometimes, because of course the National Library of Medicine, which
maintains MeSH, has a somewhat narrower focus than LC.
I thought I'd compare how the two systems deal with Asperger's Syndrome,
something I've studied somewhat. LC treats it as a NT of Autism, while
MeSH puts Autistic Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome on the same level,
as narrower terms of Child Development Disorders, Pervasive. The MeSH
treatment may be more correct, because some scholars think Asperger's
and Autism are really two different conditions that just happen to have
some similar effects.
Child Development Disorders, Pervasive is in turn a NT of Mental
Disorders Diagnosed in Childhood, which is a NT of Mental Disorders.
Now, the MeSH scope note for Mental Disorders Diagnosed in Childhood
says: "used for searching: indexers and catalogers apply specifics."
This apparently means that as a cataloger or indexer of individual
articles, you do not use this heading. Interestingly, when I tried a
search for this term in PubMed, another of NLM's databases, I retrieved
articles with narrower terms. So PubMed has some mechanism for
retrieving items with narrower terms when you search for this broad one.
If you search for this in NLM's regular "catalog," LocatorPlus, you get
nothing, since it's not a term placed on records. I'm not sure how
helpful it is in this case, because you get 103,000 hits in PubMed. But
PubMed also gives you access to the MeSH Database, which shows you the
hierarchical relations between subjects.
At the very top, Mental Disorders are under Psychiatry & Psychology.
LCSH makes Autism, Asperger's BT, a narrower term of Developmental
disabilities, which is, in turn, a NT of Disabilities. Disabilities is a
NT of both Diseases and Wounds and injuries. At times a term can appear
more than one place in the MeSH hierarchy, too. In LCSH, Diseases are
under Medicine, which is a NT for either Human biology or Life sciences.
Jonathan's idea of using an algorithm to create a hierarchy from
ClassWeb and the DDC and LCC class numbers might be a good thing to
pursue. But I would say that the chances of success seem higher with
MeSH than with LCSH, because the sheer size of LCC means that hierarchy
just isn't as clear. There is no hierarchical relation between Medicine
(R) and Human biology and Life sciences (both presumably QH), for
example, while all specific mental disorders fit into WM (Psychiatry) in
the NLM classification.
--Ted Gemberling
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of David M Guion DMGUION
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:54 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Purposes of classification & Information
imperialism
Jonathan Rochkind said:
> 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'
Many, many moons ago, I worked in a dental school library and used MeSH.
That had a "tree structure" volume (I told you it was many, many moons
ago--online was not yet thought of) that, if I recall correctly, placed
every heading somewhere on a top-to bottom hierarchy. I have ever since
wished LCSH were organized that way.
Here we are talking about next-generation catalogs, when there is a
thirty-year-old example of how to structure subject headings that runs
circles around what most of us have to use now. Alas, following that
model
would seem to entail redesiging the subject system from the ground up,
which would cost gigabucks to do and more gigabucks to teach everyone
how
to use it.
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
David Guion
Music Cataloger
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Jackson Library
320 College Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27412
(336) 334-5781
dmguion_at_uncg.edu
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Received on Tue Jun 12 2007 - 08:57:29 EDT