Comments on Subject for DC-Lib-AP

Subject Table 1.
1) Is an unqualified Subject allowed?
I agree that unqualified terms should be allowed but that use of a
controlled, specified vocabulary should be strongly recommended.

2) ... qualifiers Keyword and Classification.
I agree that the use of an encoding scheme allows the distinction to be made
between these.
Keyword - without a specified scheme would seem to be the same as
unqualified Subject.  Classification - it would seem pretty unhelpful to
provide a classification number without naming the scheme from which it
comes - and if the scheme is specified, it appears redundant to have to use
the qualifier "Classification".

3) Other comment.
The comment about using Coverage for recording "a geographical aspect" does
not seem to be sufficient to explain its usage.  It seems to suggest using
Coverage instead of Subject which I don't think is the intention.  If I have
understood the suggested use of Coverage correctly, perhaps the DC-Lib
Comment could be extended to explain that a value in Coverage would probably
be in addition to the value in Subject and contain a value from a coded
scheme.

Regards,
Robina





*********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify
the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be
disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British
Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for
the views of the author.
*********************************************************************