> 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.
>
What causes the uniqueness isn't the specificity. It's the virtually
endless permutations for assigning subdivisions. For example, let's
suppose you have a book on salmon genetics that just happened to focus
on fish that were in Oregon. The rule say that salmon can be
subdivided geographically, but genetics can't. So the cataloger
wanting to make everything specific creates
Salmon -- Oregon -- Genetics
which is kosher by the rules but actually hinders useful collocation
and meaningful browsing -- particularly when you add in the fact that
the "aboutness" of works is frequently scattered across multiple
subject headings. Precoordination is useful ONLY when the components
are hierarchical or order can be predicted. It is frequently the case
that neither of these apply.
> 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.
>
It's actually pretty easy. LCSH is useless for this purpose, but MARC
coding practice for the past decade or so has been to put geographical
fields in |z, temporal in |y. Even when this is not the case in older
records, geographic and temporal headings would be easy enough to
detect.
kyle
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 13:30:33 EDT