Karen and Cheryl-
Most catalogs use the 050 only as one potential source for their local
call number, along with 090, 055, 060, 082, 086, 092 and so on. The 050
does make a useful distinction between the classification number ($a)
and the book or Cutter number ($b), but many ILSs lump them all into a
single call number field divorced from the 050/090 conventions anyway.
Libraries that use MFHD to store holdings also have class number
subfielded separately from book number, but even without this
subfielding, it is still possible to break call numbers for
classification browsing.
Which brings us to the Endeca classification browse at NCSU, which is
indeed based on undifferentiated class/book numbers. However, breaking
at the book number is not an issue for us as we are not attempting
granularity beyond that offered by the LC classification outline
(http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/), which we used as the basis for
our classification hierarchies. In most cases these hierarchies use
only the alpha and first numeric portion of the LC class to place them
within a particular range, so class numbers that extend into the first
Cutter number are not an issue. We are only attempting to *cluster*
subject materials together with the LC class, rather than to
differentiate down to the exact level of a single class. While this was
probably a good choice for our patrons, it was also based on
practicality, since we grabbed the low hanging fruit offered by LC's
classification outline rather than attempting to use MARC classification
records or a fuller classification table, one that we would have had to
encode ourselves. I also suspect that most catalog users would not want
to drill down more than four or five levels into the class system.
Beyond that, you are into diminishing returns, e.g. fewer results to
scan to find what you need. What anyone would get from the ability to
burrow down to the book number level is totally beyond my comprehension.
Charley
Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala wrote:
> Another thought: Endeca users /programmers must already have a deep
> knowledge of the content and foibles of 050. Perhaps they have
> already worked through all these issues.
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala, Ph.D.
>
> "I teach cataloging."
--
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Charley Pennell mailto:cpennell_at_unity.ncsu.edu
Principal Cataloger for Metadata voice: (919)515-2743
Metadata and Cataloging Department fax: (919)515-7292
NCSU Libraries, Box 7111
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
Adjunct Librarian, Memorial University of Newfoundland
World Wide Web: http://www.ibiblio.org/hillwilliam/chuckhome.html
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Received on Wed Sep 26 2007 - 13:34:25 EDT