Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
> think it's time to challenge the conventional wisdom that alphabetic
> browse is the only or best way to accomplish these goals.
>
Did anybody say that? The point was that it seems to be falling into
utter disregard. We're in need to define what kinds of browsing we
have to distinguish and for what purposes they are useful.
> When it comes to LCSH, things get trickier, because so much of the
> _structure_ of LCSH is based on the idea that alphabetic listing will be
> THE interface to it. The problem for LCSH is that's not neccesarily the
> case anymore.
>
While this may be LCSH's problem, it is not its fault. Come up with
something that can replace LCSH's pre-coordination paradigm and do
better without alphabetical browsing.
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Jul 24 2007 - 08:29:19 EDT