On 19/11/2012 15:43, Sandford, Mark wrote:
<snip>
> If it's a library's policy to assign one, and only one, classification
> number, then you're stuck in the shelf-order mentality. We have plenty
> of items in our collection for which two or more LC numbers make perfect
> sense, but because our ultimate need is to put it on a shelf, we give it
> only one. Even items in our online collections get a single
> classification number. The decision not to consider adding more sure
> seems like a holdover from the shelf.
</snip>
A classified order, or "classification" does not necessarily mean
numbers. Numbers are only the shorthand used in libraries for physical
arrangement. When Cutter et al. came up with the "dictionary" catalog,
the question they had to solve was: we have all these catalog cards.
What is the best way to arrange them? They decided upon a
dictionary/alphabetical arrangement over a classified arrangement, but
they understood the problems and retained the classified arrangement
through the syndetic structure within the authority files. It is all
still there, but so buried it is lost to everyone now.
If you look up "Hamburger" in the LC Authority file, and look hard, you
will get a Broader Term reference to "Sandwiches" from there to
"Cooking" from there to "Home economics" from there to "Family life
education" etc. This is a classified arrangement that exists now, and
has always been. It's just that the classified arrangement was always
more difficult to use, first, because Cutter et al. decided to focus on
alphabetical order with their dictionary catalog. But they understood
what they were losing and wanted to retain the possibility of classified
retrieval. That is the importance of the syndetic structure of the
authority file. The cards weren't arranged in classified order, but in
dictionary order but the classified arrangement could still be
followed--with trouble.
The second reason the classified arrangement is more difficult to use is
that the computerized catalogs haven't included them very well or when
they did, they did not have decent displays of the classified
structures. That has been a complete disaster and in fact, has been the
case for such a long that much of their power has been
forgotten--although it is all still maintained.
You can kind of see it in id.loc.gov
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh92002088.html, where you can
navigate along the broader/narrower terms. In the visualization view,
it's OK to follow the broader terms until you come to "Cooking" when it
scares me to death! Still, the structures could be resurrected and put
to use in new and interesting ways.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Mon Nov 19 2012 - 11:05:36 EST