Jim, LCSH is not a classification. It isn't even a complete thesaurus. See:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1503445
Simon Spero's work on LCSH.
"Subject Headings" are not a classification. They are subject headings.
kc
On 11/19/12 8:03 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
> 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.
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Mon Nov 19 2012 - 11:11:04 EST