|
Hello all!
Sorry, I was out of Office for a couple of days last week and it was not until
yesterday I got a chance to read through all the answers to my mail about Subject
and Coverage. It is an interesting debate and I hope it will not stop here. There
seems to be quite different opinions on how to use the two elements.
I got a mail directly adressed to me from Marsha Kaiserman who adviced me to get in
contact with the ALCTS CCS SAC Metadata and Subject Analysis (subcommittee) whose
site is at:
http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/metasub.html.
Which I did and got the adress to the report Subject data in the metadata record :
recommendations and rationale, adress:
http://www.govst.edu/users/gddcasey/sac/MetadataReport.html
(the adress kindly delivered by Diane Dates Casey).
Perhaps most of you have already read this report but I would like to quote the
following recommendations:
"3.2.3 Syntax
----
Recommendation:
The metadata record, and the subject element in particular, should be as simple or
as complex as desired. For example, librarians may choose to continue to apply LCSH
to the metadata records in the same manner as those assigned to MARC
records. For those not trained in subject cataloging, the Subcommittee recommends a
simplified syntax. ...",
and this:
"5.1.4 Placement of Non-Topical Data
----
Recommendation:
The Subcommittee recommends two options:
(1) Using LCSH subject strings, if possible (i.e., if time and trained personnel
are available), particularly in the OPAC environment.
(2) Making use of other Dublin Core elements (type, coverage) in addition to the
SUBJECT element to accommodate different facets related to subject: topic, place,
period, language, etc. Deconstructed subject strings should be so designated.
Between the two options, the Subcommittee endorses the second option, i.e., the use
of separate Dublin Core elements for form, type, time, and space, particularly in
situations where non-catalogers are involved in the creation of metadata records."
I have forwarded the debate to my collegues who work with subject matters - we know
have a few things to reflect on during our summer vacations... As I mentioned
before we plan to add an English translation to our Swedish Subject terms (a
project which will start in 2001 at the earliest). We will also look over our user
guides/principles and adjust them to correspond better with the user
guides/principles of LCSH. Consequently, we are especially interested in following
the discussions/developments at the libraries using LCSH.
Stina
Mary Larsgaard skrev:
> Yes, but ... not the geographic/chron/typeformat names.
> I've copied from the dc site only coverage and subject;
> do note that Subject is intended ONLY for "topic of the
> content" - and as I remember topic means only thematic
> content, not e.g geographic content.
>
> So what is needed here is to have LCSH as acceptable
> authority list for Coverage.
>
> Element: Coverage
>
> Name: Coverage
> Identifier: Coverage
> Definition: The extent or scope of the content of the resource.
> Comment: Coverage will typically include spatial location
> (a place name
> or geographic coordinates), temporal period (a
> period label,
> date, or date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named
> administrative entity).
> Recommended best practice is to select a value from a
> controlled vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus
> of Geographic
> Names [TGN]) and that, where appropriate, named
> places or time
> periods be used in preference to numeric
> identifiers such as
> sets of coordinates or date ranges.Element: Subject
>
> Name: Subject and Keywords
> Identifier: Subject
> Definition: The topic of the content of the resource.
> Comment: Typically, a Subject will be expressed as keywords,
> key phrases or classification codes that describe
> a topic
> of the resource.
> Recommended best practice is to select a value from a
> controlled vocabulary or formal classification scheme.
>
> At 11:11 AM 6/9/00 -0500, Amy Tracy Wells wrote:
> >Mary and Stina,
> >
> >I don't disagree with you re: Subject vs. Coverage and place being
> >slightly confusing but believe LCSHs are appropriate content for
> >Subject. Approval of initial Dublin Core Interoperabiity Qualifiers
> >(http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-general/2000-04/0010.html) specifies
> >the various approved qualifiers for both. I included some text from this
> >document below:
> >
> >Approved Qualifiers
> >Qualifiers for 'Subject':
> >Encoding Schemes:
> > LCSH
> > MeSH
> > DDC
> > LCC
> > UDC
> >
> >Qualifiers for 'Coverage':
> >Element Refinements:
> > Place
> > Time
> >
> >Encoding Schemes:
> > DCMI Point (place)
> > ISO3166 (place)
> > DCMI Box (place)
> > TGN (place)
> > DCMI Period (time)
> > W3C-DTF (time)
> >
> >Amy
> >
> >Mary Larsgaard wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Stina.
> > > You've touched on several topics that certainly came to my
> > > mind while I was in the group working on DC-Coverage -
> > > and far earlier than that, since it's an interesting
> > > part of the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH).
> > >
> > > I hasten to say that the below is my take on it and
> > > other catalogers on this listserv may well view
> > > matters differently.
> > >
> > > 1. In LCSH, the word "subject" covers everything - thematic
> > > words (e.g., 'geology'), geographic places, chronological
> > > periods, form/genre terms (e.g., 'databases', 'maps').
> > >
> > > In DC, there are (rather surprisingly, given the push for
> > > DC being as easy and straightforward as possible) a couple
> > > of places where it's actually more precise than are standard
> > > library practices (e.g., there are many more 'relations' than
> > > we exactly specify in marc21). One of these is the
> > > area of subject. Subject is ONLY thematic words; it is
> > > not geographic areas (those are Coverage), chron.
> > > periods (those are Coverage), or form/genre (those
> > > are e.g. Type etc.).
> > >
> > > So yes, use your authority-list words, and specify
> > > the list that you use, but use them in Coverage,
> > > not in Subject.
> > >
> > > 2. Re pre-coordination - this has been on my mind
> > > ever since the online catalog my library uses finally
> > > got keyword search (simultaneous author/title/subject
> > > search, any word in any one of those fields).
> > > a. What keyword search does is tear precoordination apart
> > > and in effect it does make a relatively small number
> > > of false drops possible because of this.
> > > b. We find that straight subject search using precoordinated
> > > terms requires that the user either:
> > > i. have a thorough understanding
> > > of LCSH and how it works; OR
> > > ii. (what actually happens) find something
> > > that's right on topic through a keyword search and then
> > > religiously type in the subject-heading search in a
> > > subject search.
> > >
> > > Precoordinated subject headings are extremely
> > > powerful in zeroing in on a topic. The problem is that they
> > > are much easier for users to find in the first place in a hardcopy
> > > card catalog than in an online catalog. This is logical - after
> > > all, precoordinated headings were designed in a hardcopy-card-
> > > catalog era. But I have had some very demanding discussions
> > > with a person who specializes in thesaurus design and construction
> > > using NO precoordinated headings - you just apply as many
> > > as fit. So for example, let's say we had a geology map of
> > > California. The LCSH heading would be:
> > > Geology--California--Maps.
> > > The headingS using her thesaurus rules would be:
> > > Geology
> > > California
> > > Maps
> > >
> > > So ... it seems to me we need to rethink LCSH
> > > a bit in light of this. But perhaps your experience
> > > has been different>
> > >
> > > 3. I would certainly like to look over your subject-headings
> > > list when you have English translation available.
> > > Looks very similar to LCSH.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > At 11:06 AM 6/8/00 +0200, Stina Degerstedt wrote:
> > > >Hello!
> > > >
> > > >I have a question concerning the usage of DC.SUBJECT as apposed to
> > > >DC.COVERAGE:
> > > >
> > > >The Royal Library runs a subject heading list which is used by many
> > > >Swedish libraries. The list contains of both single terms and
> > > >pre-coordinated terms for general use. It is also
> > > >possible to add a geographical name or a time aspect to the terms
> > > >(according to our guidelines).
> > > >Example: 'Byggnader - arkitektur - Sverige - 1900-talet' (= Buildings -
> > > >architecture - Sweden - 20th century).
> > > >
> > > >This subject list is freely available on Internet (as a database -
> > > >adress, se below) and ment to be a tool for describing both printed
> > > >material and electronic resources. We also plan to add an English
> > > >translation of the terms in order to gain greater interoperability with
> > > >other systems.
> > > >
> > > >Now to the point: We are just now discussing the relationship between
> > > >the dc elements of Subject and Coverage when it comes to place names and
> > > >time. Which is the "best" element for place names? Should we double the
> > > >information? Are pre-coordinated subject headings only for librarians
> > > >while "ordinary people" prefer a combination of single terms in both
> > > >Subject and in Coverage?
> > > >We are very much interested to learn if there have been any previous
> > > >discussions in these matters. We would also be much greatful if those of
> > > >you who use subject headings similar to ours could tell us about your
> > > >praxis and experiences when working with Dublin Core.
> > > >
> > > >Adress to "Svenska ämnesord" (only in Swedish):
> > > >http://www.amnesord.kb.se/
> > > >
> > > >Kindly,
> > > >
> > > >Stina
> > > >
> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >Stina Degerstedt
> > > >Enheten för bibliografisk utveckling och samordning (BUS)
> > > >- Division for Bibliographic Development and Co-ordination
> > > >Kungl. biblioteket - Royal Library - National Library of Sweden
> > > >Post adress: Box 5039, S-102 41 Stockholm, Sweden
> > > >Telephone: +46 8 463 42 42, Fax: +46 8 463 42 25
> > > >Mail to: [log in to unmask]
> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________
> > >
> > > Mary Lynette Larsgaard
> > > Assistant Head, Map and Imagery Laboratory
> > > Davidson Library
> > > University of California, Santa Barbara
> > > Santa Barbara CA 93106
> > > telephone: 805/893-4049
> > > fax: 805/893-8799
> > > email: [log in to unmask]
> > > ______________________________________
> >
> >--
> >Amy Tracy Wells
> >Project Manager, Digital Asia Library
> >University of Wisconsin-Madison [log in to unmask]
> >728 State Street (V) 608.262.5493
> >Madison, WI 53706-1494 (F) 608.265.2754
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Mary Lynette Larsgaard
> Assistant Head, Map and Imagery Laboratory
> Davidson Library
> University of California, Santa Barbara
> Santa Barbara CA 93106
> telephone: 805/893-4049
> fax: 805/893-8799
> email: [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
