Well.... depends on what you want to accomplish exactly, and what you
mean by ' "one-facet" topics, that is the headings that are simple, not
compound.'
Certainly all of the headings with "--", that pre-coordinated from
existing authorized terms, are compound and should be excluded.
But according to most thesaural understandings/definitions of "compound"
vs "simple", there are a lot of compound terms left in the LCSH terms
without "--" too.
For instance:
“Cookery, Indic”
“Absurd (Philosophy) in literature”
”Teachers of gifted children”
Those examples are all from McGrath's article on LCSH in facetted
interfaces: http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/23
Other examples include LCSH terms with "and" in them, for instance:
"Children & adults"
"Children & radio"
"Children & toys"
[Last time I looked at these, I thought the word 'and' was actually
used, not an ampersand. Not sure if this has changed in LCSH practice
since I last looked, or if both the spelled out word and the symbol are
used in different circumstances.]
LCSH is a strange beast.
Dont' get me wrong, I think there is value in making sure there's a URI
and an 'authority record' for every individual LCSH "term", even when
it's a "compound term". But I wouldn't refer to this as making sure
everything in that category are "simple terms", they are not, many of
them will still be compound terms combining multiple concepts.
And I _think_ that nearly every indivudal LCSH term should already have
an LCSH authority record? The exception might be certain "free floating"
terms? Perhaps we should advocate that LC establish authority records
for every individual term that can appear in an LCSH heading? Can anyone
more familiar with LCSH than I say if this is feasible, and what other
categories exist of individual terms (not with "--" in them) that do not
have an authority record?
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Ross Singer <rossfsinger_at_GMAIL.COM>:
>
>
>
>> This shouldn't be hard, if I understand you correctly. You mean
>> anything we've currently got that doesn't have a "--" in the label,
>> right?
>>
>
> That should do it. Yes, I think it's very simple.
>
> kc
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 16 2009 - 10:53:45 EST