On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> This probably belongs better on the id.loc.gov list, but I hesitate to subscribe to something else....
Actually, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to raise the issue where
there are people that could actually answer your question with some
authority. Asking here is like complaining about the leak in your
office to your wife.
> 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.
Yes, it's one concept. Historical Aeronautical Military Accidents in
Northern Italy. The authority record codifies that. id.loc.gov isn't
trying to remanufacture LCSH, it's merely reformatting it as SKOS so
it can be used in other contexts.
>
> 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.
Well, I'm (like Jonathan, apparently) not privy to how LCSH gets
authorized -- I realize NACO and whatnot exist, but outside of that
it's very hand wavy. Yes, this is a series of concepts that in and of
itself makes its own concept. If those discrete concepts are also
authorities, then they would have their own concept URIs.
SKOS doesn't exactly have the greatest ability to handle the concept
of subdivisions and postcoordination. At least not cleanly.
>
> 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.
>
I'm not sure the "idea is to cooperate with other terminologies".
It's to make the LCSH available to use in completely new ways, to link
up with geonames, dbpedia, etc. It also gives us persistent
identifiers for subject headings, so we're not dependent solely on
matching on strings -- especially across collections.
It's also still something that everybody's trying to figure out as it
evolves. I hardly think it's "done".
-Ross.
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 11:06:37 EDT