Well, if it's got an id URI, that means that particular heading string
has it's own authority record. Not all legal LCSH assigned headings
do. But that one does. I don't entirely understand when an authority
record exists and when it doesn't.
If LCSH is actually maintained/structured in the most efficient/useful
way for the modern environment... is a big question.
But as long as LCSH is maintained/structured as it is, I think it's
appropriate for anything that has an LCSH authority record to have a
URI, yeah.
Now, if there's something id.loc.gov can do to _additionally_ give URIs
to things that have _not_ currently had their own LCSH authority
record.... possibly that could be useful, yeah. And if there's a way for
id.loc to draw relationships (recorded as URI links) between obviously
related concepts that do not currently actually have relationships
recorded in authority records (instead relying on sorting-order to put
'obviously' related concepts adjacent to each other in the file) --
yeah, that would DEFINITELY be useful.
Jonathan
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> This probably belongs better on the id.loc.gov list, but I hesitate to subscribe to something else....
>
> But this may be the correct list anyway to get a more general opinion: Is there general agreement that the LCSH headings should definitely be in the form that a heading with lots of subheadings, e.g.:
> Aeronautics, Military--Accidents--Italy, Northern--History
>
> should have only one URI? http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2007009179.
>
> In reality, this heading is a a big, mixed up conglomeration of concepts and it could be argued that the heading above came together as it did only after a series of historical accidents. By this I mean that some cataloger in the past decided that "Accidents" can be a valid subdivision of a specific type of subject while e.g. "Architecture" cannot.
>
> And, if the idea is to cooperate with other terminologies, wouldn't it be better to break this heading into its facets? Here, there are several facets (essentially one for each word) but at least each subdivision could get a different URI. The URIs would be collected and displayed as each community would want.
>
> In this way, I don't think I am arguing for descriptors since libraries could continue with traditional LCSH strings. It's just that each subdivision would get a separate URI, and massive duplication could be avoided (e.g. Accidents as a subdivision would not have separate headings 1000 times, and History 100,000 times). So we could retain our practices and I think we could interact more easily with descriptors and other thesauri.
>
> Do others have any thoughts on this? Now that people can take the LCSH, maybe somebody can try splitting them apart and see what happens.
>
> Jim Weinheimer
>
>
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 10:32:50 EDT