Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu>:
>
> *If* Google is getting the entire catalog record from OCLC, then it
> seems to me they have chosen not to use certain parts. As one
> example, they have decided to go with BISAC terms instead of LCSH.
You can find instances where they use both LCSH and BISAC. However, in
every case that I've seen, they only use the 650 $a from LCSH, no
other fields or subfields, and those truncated subject headings are
virtually useless ("United States"). As you know, I'm still trying to
ascertain how this came to be the case. And I have no clue as to why
Google is not using 600 or other 6XX fields, which seem to me to be
very useful. Oh, except, perhaps, that they aren't terribly happy with
the library name forms.
BISAC has the advantage of being hierarchical, something that I think
people find useful as an organizing principle. The headings are not
very detailed, but the detail of the books will be available through
the full text search. The general headings provided by BISAC provide a
context for the particulars. Google doesn't do this today, but I could
imagine those BISAC headings being used as facets to narrow down a
keyword search.
One can license the use of BISAC from the BISG, and it appears that
Google is able to assign BISAC headings to the books automatically.
LCSH, on the other hand, would be free to use, but it doesn't exist
anywhere as a complete list of headings -- the LCSH authority file
only represents the base headings from which actual headings can be
derived. Deriving those actual headings is quite complex. And we
already know that there are lots of ways in which LC subject headings
are not user-friendly (cookery, etc.).
My gut feeling is that the publishers are much more open to allowing
someone to use (and even mis-use) their data than libraries are. Can
you imagine the outcry we would hear if Google developed some
algorithm for the automatic assignment of LCSH to books? They'd never
hear the end of it from librarians.
kc
> If this is true, why? Most probably because they don't find a lot of
> the LCSH useful in the new environment, and it is difficult to
> argue with this. Examples are legion: who in their right mind will
> search for "computer network resources"? In a keyword environment,
> that is useless. Who searches for "personal narratives"?
>
> I can understand why Google would opt for simpler BISAC terms,
> although I want to emphasize that I do not agree with this at all,
> but it certainly is a logical conclusion. It's a completely
> different information environment today, and has been for quite some
> time. And if I am right about the overwhelming importance of Google
> after a Google-Publishers settlement, they will be the most
> important players around. They will be calling the shots.
>
> Jim Weinheimer
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Sep 17 2009 - 06:07:39 EDT