Hopefully using some kind of coded and machine-actionable format.
Not "touches on King's Evil" in narrative form, but:
LCSH: King's Evil
how-much-about: 15%
[Maybe 'touches upon' is by convention 15% or something. This is not an
exact science, and doesn't need to be! Just a rough estimate providing
more information than we currently have.].
Then, we can write relevancy ranking algorithms which take this into
account, or the 'power user' (such as a librarian) could even conduct
searches like "King's Evil at subject-aboutness of at least 30%" or
something.
If you just have free-form narrative descriptions of "how much about", I
think the value added is much more limited than it could be.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
> Personally, I'd favor putting some sort of qualitative or quantitative
> assessment by each subject heading, so you could put "25% King's Evil"
> or "touches on [no pun intended] King's Evil" into the record. Then
> you could put in as many headings as any reasonable person might use
> to locate an item, and allow relevancy ranking within a subject to
> boot.
>
> You could do this gradually, perhaps only on new stuff, without
> upsetting the apple cart. It think it's the sort of new-old mashup
> that could save LCSH. Insisting that books are about three or any
> fixed or suggested number subjects, and about them to the same degree,
> is just dogmatism.
>
> Tim
>
> On 8/5/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
>
>> Nathan,
>> I think you put the issues real well. Here's a couple of examples of
>> where I think inconsistency is okay. Or generally assigning headings
>> that are not entirely according to rules.
>>
>> I work in a medical library, and a couple of days ago I cataloged a book
>> on a physician in the 17th century, "Serjeant [sic] Surgeon John
>> Knight." Naturally, the basic headings for the book are for John Knight
>> (600) and the MeSH headings (650's) "Military
>> Medicine--history--England" and "Surgery--England--Biography." However,
>> there's also a chapter on something that I found quite historically
>> interesting, King's Evil. It was a kind of tuberculosis that
>> traditionally was thought to be healed by the touch of a king. Knight
>> was close to the king, so he was involved in setting up the "touch"
>> appointments.
>>
>> Now, when I first started out as a cataloger, I remember being told that
>> you shouldn't put a heading on unless at least a third of the book is
>> about that topic. And in this case, it's only one chapter. So that is
>> probably contrary to that rule. But this subject was interesting to me,
>> and I noticed it's a heading ("King's Evil") that was established by the
>> National Library of Medicine pretty recently. Also, this is the first
>> time it's been used in our database.
>>
>> Here's where the inconsistency comes in. There are most likely other
>> books in our collection that touch on King's Evil to as great an extent
>> as this book. We have an extensive history of medicine collection. So a
>> user or reference person will not be able to say that the use of this
>> heading coincides with the actual presence of the subject in our
>> collection. But my point is that if someone comes to the library looking
>> for materials on King's Evil, the heading on that one book will help
>> her. She'll find the book, and it will most likely have bibliographical
>> references pointing her to others on the topic.
>>
>> Another cataloging rule that I've sometimes violated is one that says
>> you shouldn't put more than 3 subjects on a bib. Actually, I don't think
>> this is strictly a rule today, but I think it may have been at one
>> point. Another aspect of it was that if you had more than 3, you were
>> supposed to find a more general one that covered them or some of them,
>> to bring them to three or fewer. I'm pretty sure this was at least
>> partly a labor-saving rule. Management didn't want people to spend much
>> time assigning subject headings. I'm assuming it's also partly about
>> respecting the role of broader terms. You shouldn't have a series of
>> narrower terms together that all add up to one broader term. I think I
>> agree with that, but there are also times when you need both broader and
>> narrower terms, as when a book is mostly about a narrower term, but some
>> parts of it are about that term's BT. Also, I think we have to realize
>> that subject headings need to support keyword searching, and the more
>> subject vocabulary there is on a record, the more likely it will be
>> retrieved that way.
>>
>> I'm not saying there shouldn't be practical limits on the number of
>> subject headings we use. But I just don't think I can live with the
>> 3-subject rule all the time.
>>
>> Nathan, I appreciate your discussion of philosophy. It sounds like
>> you're a philosophical "realist," as I am. Not "realist" in the sense of
>> being a "hard-headed realist," but in the sense of believing there is a
>> real natural order in the universe, and part of our task in the world is
>> to find that order, not just imagine it. Of course that doesn't mean
>> it's easy to find, or that people who think they've found it (or bits of
>> it) have a right to be arrogant to those who don't see it their way. We
>> need to be both "realist" and humble, and I think you exemplify that.
>>
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>> (205)934-2461
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
>> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:10 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in libraries
>> (was "Elitism in libraries")
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> Good grief. Thanks. Not sure if it will help me get a job though (did
>> you see my "contrarian", philosophical (well, *I* think I'm practical :)
>> ) posts on NGC4Lib?
>>
>> Ted: I guess I'm kind of Weinbergian in thinking that a certain amount
>> of inconsistency is okay. Part of the burden of research belongs to the
>> user, and complexities of ideas are such that you probably can't expect
>> indexers to assign all headings consistently. The user needs to figure
>> that out to some extent, with the help of reference people. (end)
>>
>> I too think it is impossible to expect indexers to assign all headings
>> consistently. And yet - if the person cataloging knows the topic
>> they're cataloging about relatively well; and if they try very hard to
>> accurately represent (with an eye towards creating detailed subject
>> headings) the ideas / representations of the author in terms the
>> intended audience can understand; and if they do so following accepted,
>> agreed-upon conventions, doing so consistently - then this situation is
>> much better than if just a couple uncontrolled vocabulary keywords are
>> attached to an item (extreme statement - straw man - I know...). Again,
>> to me, this seems like love (paying attention to something...
>> "listening" to it... trying to represent it as accurately as possible...
>> sharing it with others in a way that it can readily be found... doing so
>> in the context of other things like it, etc.). It also is putting a
>> real value on hard work, curiosity, "leather-foot journalism", etc., of
>> the other. !
>> Will this be perfect, proven, 100%, beyond probabilities, etc. (a la
>> Plato and his ideals)? No. But - *if together we share a world out
>> there* - and if the people who write the books - with all of their
>> particular biases / hated "isms" (some who no doubt recognize them
>> better than others) - share the same world and have taken it upon
>> themselves to look closely at this or that and to communicate to us some
>> aspect of it they find important or interesting (let's assume for a
>> minute its *not all about* self-interested power plays)... then to me,
>> at least, it seems more reasonable to believe that we can - and should
>> try - to make *some* overall sense of reality than not (or you can go
>> ahead and just get real cynical about those "selfish genes" you got :)).
>> If some want to call that a particular philosophy, or faith, I
>> understand - some, after all, many would say that it is irrational to
>> even try this. I imagine most [naïve?] regular folks would call that
>> some "good sense" t!
>> hough. And I would argue that if some rather intellectual person, for
>> example, says they believe otherwise, in their actions they often
>> tacitly betray those stated beliefs. Most people would "popularize"
>> their heady stuff *if they could*.
>>
>> Otherwise - if there is *nothing* orderly about the world (remember, not
>> even David says this) and we can't discover *anything* (here - I'm not
>> sure in what sense David thinks things can be discovered) - why are we
>> talking anyways? :) And what *in the world* are those crazy librarians
>> talking about? But if we think it's a good thing to think we can learn
>> about the whole wide world out there - and not just what interests us at
>> the moment, can we even teach a child this, for instance, without trying
>> to meaningfully categorize the people, places, things, influential
>> ideas, etc. that are out there?
>>
>> I don't think so - but don't you put me in any boxes now... :)
>>
>> 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: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:53 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in libraries
>> (was Elitism in libraries)
>>
>> Blanka,
>> Yes, Nathan's posts are wonderful. So gracious and thought provoking.
>> He's a lot better exponent of library values than I am (when I logged
>> onto my e-mail last night, I did with trepidation, expecting some angry
>> responses to my rant on Wednesday about library literature. And I may
>> still get them.)
>>
>> Nathan, you confirmed something I'd been thinking for awhile. I also
>> figured Mann was real pro-computer until a certain point, not at all
>> reactionary. In fact, I bet that when the online catalog came along, he
>> thought it was the greatest thing ever for library users. I think the
>> tipping point may have come with the 1991 article by Dorothy Gregor and
>> Carol Mandel, "Cataloging must change!" Or perhaps a bit later, since I
>> think that article did not begin to be real influential right away. At
>> any rate, it wasn't until 1997 that he wrote his response to it, which I
>> think is a classic. Here are a few lines from it:
>>
>> "A few years ago, I was surprised to hear a speaker at an ALA convention
>> assert that it was 'known' that subject catalogers cannot agree on which
>> headings to assign to books; the speaker referred to a 1991 Library
>> Journal article as, apparently, validating that belief ... A few months
>> ago I heard it once more from a graduate student at one of the local
>> library schools. Her cataloging class, it seems, was debating whether or
>> not LC Subject Headings were even necessary any more, and the same 1991
>> LJ article was being offered as "evidence" in the discussion. The gist
>> of one of the major arguments presented in the article, 'Cataloging must
>> change!' ... is that fine distinctions in subject cataloging simply do
>> not matter because there is so little consistency in the assignment of
>> LC subject headings anyway."
>>
>> Suddenly the online catalog and keyword searching, things which had
>> given users more access, were being used as an excuse to dismantle our
>> system of subject cataloging.
>>
>> It's significant that Karen Calhoun cited Gregor and Mandel's article as
>> an inspiration for her work when she made her Report on the future of
>> bibliographic control over the last couple of years. Mann's article in
>> Cataloging & Classification Quarterly can be found in v. 23 (3/4), 1997.
>>
>>
>> Now, I will say, as I have before, that I don't think consistency is
>> quite as important as Mann or Gregor and Mandel think. I side with Mann
>> on the value of assigning subject headings and do think consistency is a
>> good goal, but I guess I'm kind of Weinbergian in thinking that a
>> certain amount of inconsistency is okay. Part of the burden of research
>> belongs to the user, and complexities of ideas are such that you
>> probably can't expect indexers to assign all headings consistently. The
>> user needs to figure that out to some extent, with the help of reference
>> people.
>>
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>> (205)934-2461
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bajankova, Blanka (KCEL)
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:32 AM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in libraries
>> (was Elitism in libraries)
>>
>> It is a joy to read your thoughts, Nathan Rinne.
>> Blanka
>>
>> Blanka Bajankova, Librarian
>> FAO UN
>> David Lubin M. Library
>> CDP-Monographs Cataloguing Unit
>> 00153 Rome, Italy
>>
>>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Mon Aug 06 2007 - 13:07:09 EDT