Will, et al. First off...this is a great thread. We need to have more of these kinds of discussion here!
<snip> A few questions: "Does anyone have an opinion about the value, in the networked information world, of the hierarchical LC subject format I described above ("Steel Industry--Pennsylvania--Pittsburgh.")? Are others using this format (and why) or are you using single terms, more like keywords?" The problem that I see in these discussions is that those not steeped in the cataloging tradition don't often see the LCSH as a larger social system of collaboratively creating a common set of terms. There are, no doubt, challenges with using LCSH that derive from what LCSH is. (And I'm going out on a limb here. LCSH isn't covered in my cataloging class until next week....corrections welcome) LCSH subject headings aren't just made up willy nilly, they're based on the concept of "literary warrant" or that the terms used are actually represented in the body of materials being described. For bibliographic texts there's a leading organization and a large group of users, following a common format that debate the addition/deletion and change of terms based on the bibliographic materials they see. I'm not exactly sure how visual materials feed into this process, but the bulk of LCSH is likely to be based on texts, rather than images. It often looks like madness, but there is method to it. The question seems to suggest whether we can/should develop a "visual literary warrant" for describing the "ofness" and "aboutness" of the materials we're describing. Things like Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) are an important step towards that goal because they provide guidance and some liberal constraints on what kinds of controlled vocabularies are used for subject description. LCSH is not a magic bullet, but an appropriate controlled vocabulary is going to offer some advantages over "keywords". Namely: 1. Interoperability We're living in a networked environment. Many of us will be sharing our records outside the contexts of our local environment (if not today, in the future) and using common vocabularies will make the job of aggregating and providing access much easier. A set of keywords, or even a folksonomy created by a specific community may not always make sense outside of that community (and I'd say this goes both ways...LCSH doesn't always make sense outside of it's community, useful as it can be). We're already seeing the interoperability challenges even when controlled vocabularies are used. See for example some of the work being done through National Science Digital Library OAI Best Practices/Shareable Metadata Best Practices http://oai-best.comm.nsdl.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?PublicTOC 2. Clustering/Collocation Using a limited, controlled set of terms means it will be easier to establish relationships between individual items and put like things next to each other. This is more difficult when uncontrolled sets of keywords are used. 3. Management The other benefits of things like LCSH is that (in the right contexts), is the possibility to do authority control. If terms change over time it's easier to update, change and transform them if they've been properly applied. How many of us are hamstrung on sharing information about our collections because of the amount of "clean-up" of uncontrolled terms/descriptions. So what about folksonomies and keywords? I think the development of folksonomies is very exciting. It allows us to leverage large social groups to do what we don't always have the staffing to do and it puts description in the hands of end-users. And as some have suggested it's not an either-or proposition. I like to think about it like the Congress. The Senate (in theory) is supposed to be a slower-moving more deliberative body, whereas the House has it's finger on the pulse of the people. Call it "bicameral cataloging" that takes the benefits from persistent standards-based description and more flexible approaches such as folksonomies. In response to Will's question about where folksononmic terms live, I can't say. However I'd say don't try to mix them with other terms. Being able to identify where terms come from will be important to the long-term usefulness and management of the records we create today. Maybe they get indexed together in a searching service, but in a record they should be clearly distinguishable. It will be interesting to see from STEVE and other projects whether this kind of social tagging is also useful to staff functions, which may suggest it's useful to include in collections records. Looking forward to where this discussion goes... Richard Urban Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rjur...@uiuc.edu --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com