Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> Using LCSH headings and subdivisions as a source of subject headings
> and facets makes perfect sense and it works well in practice. However
> preserving precoordinated strings just causes hassles in an online
> environment and doesn't really lead to anything good.
Having a single item with a specific subject doesn't bother me. We are only at one moment in time and there will probably won't be unique in the long run. After all, at one time, I'm sure there was only one book about computer viruses. In any case, a subject should define the concept(s) according to the greatest specificity available within a thesaurus at the time, no matter what else happens to be in the catalog.
But Karen makes a good point: I think we do want to be able to create various browses or views or something based on the various types of subdivisions available under each heading. Essentially what we want (at least in my opinion) is to get some kind of conceptual overview of the range of possible subconcepts when we do a search for "World War, 1939-1945." The old red books did a fairly good job, but transferring it to the web has been a disaster. One of the basic reasons is that the overview of the headings gets swallowed up by the huge number of the old [May Subd Geog], or geographic subdivision practice, which overwhelms everything else. I think it was even better in the card catalog than on line.
This is one reason why I am concerned over the current linear structure in the way LC has let out the subjects. We can't screen out geographic subdivision or display by time period. I'm sure it can be done somehow, and perhaps the alternative tools pointed out can help.
And anyway, it is my sincere hope that the library world is trying to work with other thesauri from other communities. In these trying economic times, we need all the partners we can get if we are going to have a chance to survive.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 12:47:45 EDT