This is great!
"• linking from maps as visual access to classification content, or
• linking from classification to maps as visual enhancement of
information presented in the classification schedule."
I love the idea of using the classification -- it not only has some
"organization" but it should be possible to make use of some of the
"facets." (Actually, Dewey should be good for that, since some
subdivisions are standardized. I need to read up again on LCC and its
subdivisions.) This makes so much more sense than trying to navigate
LCSH.
Perhaps if this becomes something more than an experiment there would
be motivation to assign more than one class to an item.
kc
Quoting "Diane I. Hillmann" <dih1_at_CORNELL.EDU>:
> Well, actually, there is work going on that I would suggest is
> pretty close to mapping knowledge. Take a look at Jolande Goldberg's
> handout for a presentation last year on her work on the LCC schedule
> for the law of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas:
>
> http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/annualmeeting/2009/handouts/indigenous2009-goldberg-handout.pdf
>
> A description of the project shows where this goes past our
> traditional notion of classification:
>
> "Because so much of the important current primary and secondary
> literature in this field exists only in the “deep Web,” a
> classification schedule that meets current needs must address the
> gap between availability and accessibility of information. For the
> first time, Web resources are being used for content formulation and
> the terminology of the schedule. The goal is to make the online
> classification a direct tool or “portal” for content search on the
> Web." *http://www.llmc.com/Newsletter/Issue40_March_2010.pdf
>
>
> I've seen demos of what Jolande is doing with this and it's very
> exciting, and from a recent conversation with her I gleaned that
> this approach is being considered for revisions of other schedules.
> Given that much of our older material is already classified using
> LCC, we already have a head start. The sad thing is that most
> digital items are not being classified in most libraries as a 'cost
> saving' measure--something I've long thought was a terrible idea.
>
> Diane
>
> On 12/24/10 10:32 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Quoting Alexander Johannesen<alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM>:
>>
>>
>>> So, here's the thing. Why aren't you mapping knowledge?
>> This is something that frustrates me greatly, but it also seems to be
>> a huge problem of communication within our profession. Library
>> cataloging, although it calls itself "description and access" is about
>> describing "things" (books, CDs, DVDs) and making it possible to find
>> those things. But there is very little action in libraries around
>> helping users get to information, or to discover the informational
>> relationships that those things represent. It's like we've stopped at
>> the inventory level of the catalog, and haven't gone on to the
>> knowledge level. We spend more time trying to figure out what the
>> proper title is than creating knowledge organization. Look at all of
>> the energy going to RDA -- and how little is going to replacing LCSH,
>> or to investigating new ways to provide information discovery.
>>
>> It seems so obvious to me that we are still primarily working on 19th
>> century problems ("What books does my library have?") when we should
>> be serving 21st century users.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Dec 24 2010 - 13:25:25 EST