Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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.
You are right about the LCSH terms, but at least some include the subdivisions. Here is an example taken at random:
"Graphic Artists Guild handbook : pricing & ethical guidelines."
http://books.google.com/books?id=doHyI6ami8MC&dq=%22motion+pictures%22&lr=&ei=kyyySsGFMInOzQSvk6iVAw
with OCLC record: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/173662297&referer=brief_results
with OCLC subjects:
Graphic arts -- United States -- Marketing.
Artists -- Professional ethics -- United States.
Artists -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
and subjects in Google, which include the BISAC terms (those have the /):
Art / American / General
Art / Commercial / General
Art / Design / General
Art / Graphic Arts
Art / Reference
Artists
Artists - Legal status, laws, etc - United States
Artists - Professional ethics - United States
Business & Economics / Business Ethics
Graphic arts
Graphic arts - United States - Marketing
Law / General
Reference / Handbooks & Manuals
It also looks as if Google is extracting the 6XX $a as a separate heading as well, e.g. the headings "Artists" and "Graphic arts" alone are not valid BISAC headings.
This record may represent the "mashed-up record" of the future.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Sep 17 2009 - 08:51:35 EDT