The short version of this lengthy post is that there's really no value in
worrying about how to handle precoordinated strings except for purposes of
busting them up.
The Rube Goldberg style precoordination rules that cause so many headaches
were developed to address challenges brought about by
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Bill Dueber wrote:
OK, so I've been trying to follow all of this, and have to say, I'm finding
it all very interesting. I want to give a special shout-out to the cataloger
who have joined in; I (and, I think, much of code4lib) need this kind of
input on a much
On 4/17/2011 10:58 AM, Bill Dueber wrote:
At the same time, I'm finding it hard to determine if we're converging on
when trying to turn LCSH into reasonable facets, here's what you need to
do or when trying to turn LCSH into reasonable facets, you've haven't got
a freakin' prayer. Can someone
For FAST, see Chan and O'Neill (2010). There are large parts of FAST where
the editors wisely opted to punt on the more intractable parts.
Simon
Chan, Lois Mai and O'Neill, Ed (2010). FAST, Faceted Application of Subject
Terminology: Principles and Application. Libraries Unlimited. ISBN:
Oh jeez, I'm not sure I'd suggest AutoCat. Even I can't bear that.
But the RDA-L list has a fair amount of discussion that still dusts
off the traditional issues and tries to figure out what sill matters.
Diane Hillmann
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Bill Dueber wrote:
OK, so I've been
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Simon Spero s...@unc.edu wrote:
The main study on this subject was the Michigan study performed/led
by Karen
Markey (some reports were written as Karen M. Drabenstott. The
final report
of the project is available at
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu wrote:
It used to be that geographical subdivision was much more flexible and was
supposed to convey different meanings depending on where it occurred in the
string. Then there was some research showing that not only did
A few belated ramblings from a cataloger:
1) GEOGRAPHICAL SUBDIVISION
It used to be that geographical subdivision was much more flexible and was
supposed to convey different meanings depending on where it occurred in the
string. Then there was some research showing that not only did
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu wrote:
I’m sure this is way too much info for most (or all) on this list, but in
case it is helpful, I thought I’d throw it out there.
I disagree. I think this was fantastic and most enlightening. Most
of us deal with this
There is a lot of redundant data in MARC that is an encoded form of
something that elsewhere is expressed as text -- somewhat controlled text,
but text Much of this redundant input (think of the time!) could
be eliminated if we quit keying text strings but allowed the display to
Quoting Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com:
Yeah, this could get ugly pretty fast. It's a bit unclear to me what
the distinction is between identical terms in both the geographic
areas and the country codes
(http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/geographicAreas/e-uk-en
Karen Miller works at Northwestern University where an authorities librarian
has been maintaining, to the dot, the authority related records (headings,
subdivisions, encoding, etc.) for over 20 years. If a cataloger there makes
a mistake, that will be fixed by the refined set of procedures run
Am 07.04.2011 17:44, schrieb Ford, Kevin:
Actually, it appears to depend on whose Authority record you're looking at.
The Canadians, Australians, and Israelis have it as a CorporateName (110), as
do the French (210 - unimarc); LC and the Germans say it's a Geographic Name.
No, the original
Thanks for all the information and discussion.
I don't think I'm familiar enough with Authority file formats to completely
comprehend - but I certainly understand the issues around the question of
'place' vs 'histo-geo-poltical entity'. Some of this makes me worry about
the immediate
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Owen Stephens o...@ostephens.com wrote:
Then obviously I lose the context of the full heading - so I also want to
look for
Education--England--Finance (which I won't find on id.loc.gov as not
authorised)
At this point I could stop, but my feeling is that it
*Hi and thank you Ross, Jonathan, and Andy,
I do wish someone from LC would answer Jonathan's questions for all codes
and geographic subdivision or subject implications. There's so much
self-inflicted pain I can go through trying to revive my cataloging days.
Here are some clarifications though:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
But, yeah, it would be worth running your ideas by a few catalogers to
see what they think.
And if anyone does this...please please *please* write it up!
--
Bill Dueber
Library Systems Programmer
University of
Thanks Ross - I have been pushing some cataloguing folk to comment on some
of this as well (and have some feedback) - but I take the point that wider
consultation via autocat could be a good idea. (for some reason this makes
me slightly nervous!)s
In terms of whether Education--England--Finance
I'm a cataloger who has been following this discussion with interest,
but not necessarily understanding all of it. I'll try to add what I
can regarding the rules for constructing LCSH headings.
My understanding is that Education--England--Finance *is* authorized,
because Education--Finance is
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Shirley Lincicum shirley.linci...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ross is essentially correct. Education is an authorized subject term
that can be subdivided geographically. Finance is a free-floating
subdivision that is authorized for use under subject terms that
conform to
-3462
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill
Dueber
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:40 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Shirley Lincicum shirley.linci
2011/4/8 Karen Miller k-mill...@northwestern.edu
I hope I'm not pointing out the obvious,
That made me laugh so hard I almost ruptured something.
Thank you so much for such a complete (please, god, tell me it's
complete...) explanation. It's a little depressing, but at least now I now
why I'm
We are working on converting some MARC library records to RDF, and looking
at how we handle links to LCSH (id.loc.gov) - and I'm looking for feedback
on how we are proposing to do this...
I'm not 100% confident about the approach, and to some extent I'm trying to
work around the nature of how
Thanks Tom - very helpful
Perhaps this suggests that rather using an order we should check
combinations while preserving the order of the original 650 field (I assume
this should in theory be correct always - or at least done to the best of
the cataloguers knowledge)?
So for:
650 _0 $$a
*... Creating possibly invalid headings isn't necessarily a problem - as we
won't get a match on id.loc.gov anyway ...
*LCSH headings reflect materials cataloged by LC. You may have materials at
your UK (or Albania, Tunisia, etc.) which were not cataloged yet at LC, thus
nothing
After having done numerous matching and mapping projects, there are some issues
that you will face with your strategy, assuming I understand it correctly.
Trying to match a heading starting at the left most subfield and working
forward will not necessarily produce correct results when matching
Andrew, please see *[YZ]* below
*181 __ $z England and you would NOT find this heading in LCSH. This is
issue one. Unfortunately, LC does not create 181 in LCSH (actually I think
there are some, but not if it’s a name), instead they create a 781 in the
name authority record. *
*[YZ]* MARC/LCSH
Still digesting Andrew's response (thanks Andrew), but
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com wrote:
*Currently under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority records, but
you can find them at viaf.org*.
*[YZ]* viaf.org does not include geographic names. I just
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Still digesting Andrew's response (thanks Andrew), but
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com
wrote:
*Currently under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority
records, but
you can find them at viaf.org
, it is in VIAF.
Warmly,
Kevin
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of LeVan,Ralph
[le...@oclc.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:34
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
If you look
07, 2011 11:28 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Still digesting Andrew's response (thanks Andrew), but
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com
wrote:
*Currently under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority
, not England as a place.
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf
Of
Owen Stephens
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:28 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Still digesting
Kevin,
England exists as a corporate body and also as a geographic name. BOTH
entities exist in LCSH. This doesn't apply to all geographic names, only to
some.
Andrew pointed us to VIAF, but I expect his algorithm to limit the search
for LCSH. Let's wait for his reply.
*Ya'aqov*
*On Thu, Apr
AM
To: Code for Libraries
Cc: LeVan,Ralph; Houghton,Andrew
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Ralph, Owen's pointing to a list where corporate (110) and geographic names
(151) are mixed.
Thanks Owen, I haven't seen that the first time. I guess you got that mixed
110/151 when
On 4/7/2011 10:46 AM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
to go to the name authority record 150 England with LCCN n82068148. Currently
under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority records,
If this would change, so name authority record elements used in 6xx
subject cataloging were in id.loc.gov, it
Jonathan, hi and thanks,
1. I believe id.loc.gov includes a list of MARC countries and a list for
geographic areas (based on the geographic names in 151 fields.
2. cataloging rules instruct catalogers to use THOSE very name forms in 151
$a when a subject can be divided (limited) geographically
: Ya'aqov Ziso [mailto:yaaq...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:18
To: Code for Libraries; Houghton,Andrew
Cc: LeVan,Ralph
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Andrew, please see [YZ] below
181 __ $z England and you would NOT find this heading in LCSH. This is issue
one
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Ya'aqov Ziso
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:56
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Ralph, Owen's pointing to a list where corporate (110) and geographic
names
(151) are mixed.
Thanks Owen, I haven't seen
*Andrew, as always, most helpful news, kindest thanks! more [YZ] below:*
*1. No disagreement, except that some 151 appears in the name file and
some appear in the subject file:*
*n82068148 008/11=a 008/14=a 151 _ _ $a
England*
*sh2010015057008/11=a
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com wrote:
1. I believe id.loc.gov includes a list of MARC countries and a list for
geographic areas (based on the geographic names in 151 fields.
2. cataloging rules instruct catalogers to use THOSE very name forms in 151
$a when a
[mailto:yaaq...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 13:47
To: Code for Libraries; Houghton,Andrew
Cc: Hickey,Thom; LeVan,Ralph
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] LCSH and Linked Data
Andrew, as always, most helpful news, kindest thanks! more [YZ] below:
1. No disagreement, except that some 151
On 4/7/2011 1:21 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
That is probably correct. England may appear as both a 110 *and* a 151 because
the 110 signifies the concept for the country entity while the 151 signifies
the concept for the geographic place. A subtle distinction...
This starts getting into
42 matches
Mail list logo
