On 07/29/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
> What I see is that images go through an interpreter for certain characteristics (lots of flesh color, looks like a nipple, there's a face in here), but that isn't subject indexing.
Why do we place so much emphasis on subject indexing? I can tell you from my interviews with literary community members that "Take me to poems by other authors in this anthology" is a more important need than "Show me poems on [subject]". An LCCS number for American authors who flourished after (I think it's) 1965? Subject headings for individual poems? They are seriously not interested.
It reminds me of a story an old professor told me. Two colleagues were arguing about the meaning of a word. One colleague suggested that they let the dictionary settle it. The other colleague said (I'm paraphrasing), "No, because the people who make dictionaries consult people like me to determine the meaning." Members of the literary community don't want our interpretation of the subject. They want their own.
So skip the subject headings for many literary works. But if you can represent the social network in which a literary work is embedded, THEN they're interested. Oh, and I'm not necessarily talking about books. It was also clear that they wanted access down to the level of individual poems, stories, etc.
Cutter's triumvirate of author, title, and subject is not a user-based principle. It's a reflection of what they could realistically accomplish in the late 19th century. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
Steve Paling
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 22:37:42 EDT