Intersetingly, the 'browse' list appears to me to include _only_ those
headings that matched your query. It does not in fact include
alphabetically adjacent headings that did not match your query. If I'm
interpreting things right. It is instead an alphabetically arrange list
of LCSH headings that matched your query. Correct me if I'm wrong.
To me, this is actually a type of 'keyword' search, not in fact what we
usually think of as a 'browse list'---as a browse list is usually
showing you ALL headings, starting at the point of your alphabetic
query--but not restricted to headings that match your query.
In fact, that makes it quite similar to the "facetted" displays of
subjects we have been seeing lately, in that only things that match your
query are shown. The differences are two. One is in the definition of
'that match your query'---here, your terms must match in the authority
record. In the typical 'facetted' display, headings are shown if they
are attached to a bib record which matched your query. So that's a more
expansive (higher recall) type of search. I have thought before that
headings that themselves matched your query ought to be given
prominence, even if the more expansive list is shown.
Secondly is that the typical facetted searches we see deconstruct the
pre-coordinated LCSH headings into component parts, and this one of
course does not. It would be interesting to see in terms of both user
studies and analysis what the benefits and weaknesses of both approaches
are (both approaches do have both benefits and weaknesses).
And of course, a third obvious difference is that the typical facetted
displays we have seen put the bibs that matched your query on the screen
together with the list of headings. Whereas this one gives you a screen
only of headings. I think there are plusses and minuses there too.
Always interesting to consider the diversity of possible interfaces
possible, to make the best use of our rich controlled data. Up to now,
too few of our systems have even tried to do that, but it seems we're
finally entering a period of innovation in interfaces.
Jonathan
Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Martha Yee reported this week about a great development in subject
> searching, spearheaded particularly by Sara Shatford Layne. See this
> page from UCLA's Film & Television Archive:
>
> http://cinema.library.ucla.edu <http://cinema.library.ucla.edu/>
>
>
>
> If you select topic or genre/form search, you can enter any combination
> of words in the search box, in any order. The great thing is that the
> result is a subject browse screen rather than a list of "hits," as usual
> for subject keyword searches. It draws from the authorities, not just
> the forms of headings on bib records, so xrefs are searched, too.
>
>
>
> This is a development by Endeavor (Voyager), so it is, I suppose,
> proprietary. But I think it's a very good development.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
> UAB Lister Hill Library
>
> (205)934-2461
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Jul 25 2007 - 13:32:44 EDT