I think there would be ways to get hierarchy out of LCC, even though
it's not expressed in the notation. There is hiearchy there, it's just
not encoded in the notation! So you'd need complete machine-processable
schedules to put things in a hiearchy by LCC.
One might indeed find it's more trouble than it's worth, especially if
the actual utility of the hiearchy generated is limited (as I think it
might be, but might not be). But one doesn't know for sure until one
tries (and then one only knows that oneself couldn't do anything useful
with it! Phew, that's enough 'ones').
While Karen makes the good point that there might be good uses for LCC
even without extracting a hiearchy anyway, I also think in a project of
this type, it's very wise not to throw out _any_ potentially useful
data. Because you might find a use for it later, and it will a lot
harder to add it later if you didn't include it at the beginning. (Note
that this doesn't neccesarily justify spending time _creating_ data
without obvious use; everything is a cost-benefit analysis, certainly.
But the cost of keeping data that exists anyway is usually less than the
cost of creating it).
This _might_ even provide an argument to keep the "book mark" ($b)
portion of the LCC. In a given individual library, the book mark/number
of course determines ordering on the shelf, so in a given individual
library if you wanted to present the _exact_ ordering on the shelf,
you'd want book mark. But I'm not sure whether this book mark is
entirely arbitrary or not? It might be entirely arbitrary and differ
from library to library in an arbitrary way, in which case keeping it in
a project of this sort is probably not going to be useful.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Thanks. Liz, although it's not hierarchical, LCC does represent the
> shelf order, so it could be used for that kind of shelf browse. For
> facets we are thinking of using only the main class (eg "A" or "K"). I
> did a cobbled together list one and two-letter classes, and of course
> had to squish some things where a two-letter class represents more than
> one topic (like psychology AND the occult). It's imperfect, but we'll
> play with letting people browse it or maybe use it to drill down in the
> facets in greater detail. It's worth playing with to see if people like
> it as a search aid. (I'm linking all of the lists that I create off of
> http://demo.openlibrary.org/about/lib, in case anyone wants to look at
> them. Suggestions and corrections always welcome.)
>
> Cheryl, my only concern about keeping the whole thing is that the book
> number will vary in different libraries, especially when the class
> number is the same. So if we ever want to data mine based on class
> number, it will be better to have it separate. I know I'm hedging here,
> but since I have no idea how the data might be used I'm trying to
> anticipate an unknown future. So thanks for your answer, because that's
> just what I needed to confirm.
>
> kc
>
> Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala wrote:
>> Karen--
>>
>> The classification portion of an LC call number is coded in 050
>> $a. This may include cutter numbers, which are often used to express
>> subjects. $b is for book numbers, which include dates. Map call
>> numbers are exceptional in that $a contains a class number, two
>> cutter numbers and a date.
>>
>> Chan's Guide to the Library of Congress Classification 5th ed.,
>> pp. 86-87, is an authoritative source on coding.
>>
>> Why not just keep it all, though?
>>
>> Cheryl
>>
>>
>>> Folks, I know this is an odd question for this list, but I couldn't
>>> find
>>> any place more focused to ask it.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get key information out of the MARC record for the
>>> Internet Archive's Open Library project. I think they should store the
>>> LC class number, since that can be used to create facets or to do a
>>> shelf browse kind of function. What I'm unsure about is whether to keep
>>> both the 050 $a and $b, or just the $a. I am assuming that the full
>>> class number is in the $a, but does LC classification ever define
>>> something that goes into $b, or is that all "cuttering, etc."?
>>>
>>> Since I don't have access to catalogers or the "Red Book," could
>>> someone
>>> here play Reference Librarian and help fine me an answer?
>>>
>>> Gratefully,
>>>
>>> kc
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>>> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
>>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala, Ph.D.
>>
>> "I teach cataloging."
>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Sep 26 2007 - 10:12:27 EDT