Jim,
Thanks for your response, dealing with "the principles
of subject analysis".
You make it sound terribly rational and empirical.
I don't believe that for a moment. I'd even say that
characterizations such as "sometimes mistakes
occur" and analogies with something like "to build
a space shuttle" amount to ludicrously pretentious
hyperbole.
I believe that your *second* early impression, i.e.
"How can any human being ever hope to do
something like this?", i.e. in a way that is objectively
( or even intersubjectively ) correct and irrefutable,
is most near the mark.
I have a long period of subject analysis behind me
( on a postcoordinate, rather than a precoordinate
basis as with the LCSH -- though I'm quite familiar
with the latter, having been originally trained in it ),
on the maintenance and refinement as well as on
the application side of things. You paint what is, as
far as my long experience is concerned, a much too
rosy and positivistic picture. The institutionalization
of consistency has also shown itself, pragmatically,
to be a vice, along with a virtue. That was of course
unavoidable -- reflecting a kind of law of nature --
also in "subject analysis", and largely explains why
"user assigned tags in tools such as LibraryThing and
Amazon" are such a breath of fresh air. I'm personally,
and selfishly, glad ( because I know how cataloguers
think, and how those headings work ) that LCSH and
suchlike do exist, because they occasionally are just
the right tool to trace down things I want to locate.
*When* that happens ( and it doesn't happen all that
often, though I am a fervent and long-time researcher ),
I tend then impulsively to ruminate that Thomas Mann
maybe did after all have a very good point or two. ( Not
the famous one, though he too had many good points ;
you know -- things like
http://www.guild2910.org/Pelopponesian%20War%20June%2013%202007.pdf
and http://www.guild2910.org/WorkingGrpResponse2008.pdf and
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/mann_paper.pdf .)
But still I can't honestly help but seriously wonder to
what extent that whole super- and substructure and
everything it brings with it genuinely are legitimate and
truly sustainable after 112 years of middling hit-and-
miss service.
Two more incidental points :
> Naturally, this is beyond the ability of Google,
> *although* it has other powers.
This observation has a rather curmudgeonly ring to
it, if you don't mind my saying so, given that it is
_qualitate qua_ hardly a question of what Google
is or is not *able* to do, but of what Google for its
own very understandable reasons would never even
consider doing or want to do.
> Simply approaching the task as professionals
> succeeds in the goal.
Now this is, dialectically and rhetorically seen, a most
outstanding testimonium paupertatis, wouldn't you
confess ?
- Laval Hunsucker
Knokke, België
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 9:20:13 AM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Digital Information Seekers: How Academic Libraries Can Support the Use of Digital Resources; Briefing Paper
Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
To what extent is the following up of instructions, rules and guidelines to be construed as evidence of, or a manifestation of, ethical judgement or
expertise ? To what extent is the *establishment* of such rules and guidelines to be construed as evidence of, or a manifestation of, ethical
judgement or expertise ?
</snip>
This is not the place to explain the principles of subject analysis. Suffice it to say that it can be done, but no one should expect perfection. The task is complicated and sometimes mistakes occur, which should cause no surprise. Building the space shuttle is also complicated and it blows up from time to time, but we don't conclude that it is impossible to build a space shuttle. You can build one; it just blows up once in awhile.
From my own career, I began by thinking about subject analysis as: "How could there possibly be any problem at all with figuring out the subject of a book?" to "How can any human being ever hope to do something like this?" until finally, I began to learn how to do it. Just like learning any other kind of skill, there is a method, there are many standards and manuals to learn how to use, plus you acquire an attitude in using that method. The underlying idea however, is following the rule of "consistency," which means following a whole realm of precedents. I may have a resource on the tilling of land in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century (made up). I have to parse this topic in my mind, and find out how similar resources have been handled; discover the subjects they have been given, and follow those usages wherever possible. If I have something genuinely new, I am in effect, creating a precedent for others to follow (just like any other new conceptual
name or title), and i!
t is up to later catalogers to follow my precedent.
The "attitude" I mentioned is not the same as "lack of bias" but rather a commitment to and understanding of the problems and to solve them as a professional, keeping to a minimum personal concerns such as morality, politics, religious, and pecuniary. This is very difficult to expect from an untrained person--a member of the general public or the authors themselves, as one can witness the user assigned tags in tools such as LibraryThing and Amazon. Naturally, this is beyond the ability of Google, *although* it has other powers.
I wrote a short discussion of this several years ago when I was still at another institution. It's been archived in the Internet Archive but the images do not come through (which happens a lot with the Internet Archive)
http://web.archive.org/web/20000819000847/http://www.princeton.edu/~jamesw/mdata/MetadataCreation.html
I don't think the images are all that critical and people can figure out what I mean. The only real change I would make to it is where I mention "standardized terminology" and would try to explain how standardized conceptual URIs can change the situation to an extent.
Most catalogers don't think of the ethical aspects of their work--but that doesn't mean that these aspects do not exist in their work or that they aren't important. Simply approaching the task as professionals succeeds in the goal.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
Received on Sat May 15 2010 - 08:51:51 EDT