I don't think anyone would deny that the UNESCO Thesaurus and
Library of Congress Subject Headings both have advantages and
disadvantages as subject indexing schemes. Preference for one or
the other often seems to be determined as much by institutional
agendas and a history of in-house use, as by each scheme's merits
or demerits.
UNESCO's advantages are its structure, which conforms to British
and international standards on monolingual thesauri, and its
simplicity: it is relatively easy to use once you grasp the basic
principles. Its drawbacks are its small size, its high level focus and
the lack of an established mechanism for submitting amendments
to UNESCO. LCSH's strengths are its detailed terminology and the
fact that it has the resources of the Library of Congress behind it.
However, it has an incoherent structure (complicated by LC's
attempt in recent years to bolt thesaurus-like features onto it), and
a fair amount of training is required in order to use it properly to its
full extent. My copy of the British Library's in-house "LCSH Guide"
(which is intended as a basic guide to LCSH) is 100+ pages long.
In fact, there is no need to see either scheme as mutually exclusive.
Electronic mapping of indexing schemes into one another is
possible, is happening, and is probably the best way forward. The
AIM25 project (see http://www.aim25.ac.uk/search/) has had
considerable success in mapping terms derived from other
schemes (such as LCSH and the Australian Human Services and
Health thesaurus) into a thesaurus structure derived from UNESCO.
They have also mapped in legacy terms submitted by participating
repositories. JISC's recent award of funding to the second stage of
the Higher Level Thesaurus Project (HILT: see
http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/) - which will aim to create a "pilot
interactive route map" for major subject schemes used in archives,
libraries and museums - shows a recognition that the boundaries of
subject schemes must broken down if users' needs are to be met.
The message from Louise Craven forwarded by Carl refers to the
UNESCO Thesaurus Working Party's attempts to seek funding for
a UK Archival Thesaurus. UNESCO has been chosen as the basis
for this Thesaurus because of its structural coherence, and
because it is already used by a number of archives and gateway
projects. However, the UK Archival Thesaurus will seek to
incorporate terms derived from other schemes (including LCSH)
where these have been used by archives for indexing, as well as
locally created legacy terms. The aim is to create a thesaurus
geared to the needs of the UK archival community. The project will
also actively co-operate with HILT2.
Peter Garrod
On 23 Apr 2002, at 18:39, Richard Higgins wrote:
> There is however more to subject indexing than a thesaurus. To be of use outside
> a local situation a subject indexing system needs a list of terms, a controlled
> means of amending that list, rules for the use of the terms and a means of
> storing those terms - a complete authority controlled indexing package.
>
> LCSH has a rather large list of terms, which due to the rule of literary
> warrant, provides many terms for things which have been the subject of books or
> which feature in US archival collections. UNESCO is a short list of abstract
> terms - it is interesting (well ...) to leaf
> through them and try to work out what situation they were designed for (my guess
> is a general library, where the wide range of very broad subjects would make
> sense, rather than an archive which tends to hold large groups of similar
> materials that need to be differentiated by fairly subtle variations of index
> terms).
>
> Where LCSH has grown up over a long period and has only recently had a thesaurus
> structure imposed (with varying success) upon it, UNESCO was designed from the
> ground up as a thesaurus. However, the list is only a small part of the process.
> Leaving aside any
> consideration of content the fundamental reason to hold
> UNESCO in doubt as a solution is its lack of infrastructure. The rules for
> applying LCSH are as long again as the list of terms, and it is here that the
> maturity of LCSH becomes evident. If you are using indexing terms in a way that
> can make sense between repositories, you need rules on how to index just as much
> as you need index terms. These rules also provide for subdivision of terms by
> place, period, subject, etc. which means a basic term can be analysed into many
> hundreds of variants - if your entire repository is full of business records the
> index term "Business records" alone is a cheap if ineffectual solution. Even the
> punctuation of these sub divisions is set out and at least one pattern of
> storage (MARC21) has been designed that allows the full potential of the system
> to be used.
>
> The Library of Congress has a programme for the maintenance and updating of the
> list of terms, another complex and expensive task it seems wasteful to
> duplicate.
>
> LCSH has been used, not just by librarians, but by archivists across the USA who
> will complain about using it (subject indexing is neither easy nor cheap) but
> use it nevertheless. While it raises problems (American usage, etc.) LCSH at
> least functions for a lot of users and is the product of many decades of
> practical use. It seems a lot of effort to try to invent a
> new wheel from scratch, and could lead to a rather bumpy and expensive ride.
> --
> Richard Higgins
> Durham University Library
> Archives & Special Collections
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002,
> Burdon, Ali wrote:
>
> >**********************************************************************
> >WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
> >Please refer to the disclaimer beneath this message
> >**********************************************************************
> >
> >I wonder if I am the only person to find Carl's email v. frustrating? I
> >would dearly like to know what people have been writing to him about UNESCO
> >and the use of thesauri in CROs. This is an issue which is of interest to
> >lots of us, and I imagine this is just the sort of discussion we should be
> >having on this list. Please could people rise above their reticence/
> >modesty /shyness /whatever and post to the list if the issue is of general
> >interest? Or maybe Carl would be kind a provide a more detailed summary?
> >Please?
> >Ali
> >****************************
> >Ali Burdon (Ms)
> >Archivist
> >City of Westminster Archives Centre
> >10 St Ann's Street
> >London
> >SW1P 2DE
> >
> >[log in to unmask]
> >020 7641 5180
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Boardman, Carl - Cultural
> >> Services[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:44 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Subject Indexes
> >>
> >> Many thanks to those people who replied to my query on this over the past
> >> few days - I've learned quite a bit about the state of thesauri. UNESCO
> >> certainly has support, but with the general proviso that its users have
> >> had
> >> to map their own indexes on to its structure because it's too high level
> >> for
> >> a CRO. However, I have also been tipped off to areas where other offices
> >> have tackled this problem, and I'm duly getting in touch.
> >>
> >> Carl Boardman
> >> Oxfordshire Record Office
> >>
> >> Oxfordshire Record Office is a section of Cultural Services in Oxfordshire
> >> County Council. This message is intended only for the addressee, and OCC
> >> can
> >> take no responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained
> >> therein, nor should the message be held as having any legal validity.
> >>
> >
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >Westminster City Council switchboard:
> >+44 20 7641 6000
> >**********************************************************************
> >This E-Mail may contain information which is
> >privileged, confidential and protected from
> >disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient
> >of this E-mail or any part of it, please telephone
> >Westminster City Council immediately on receipt.
> >You should not disclose the contents to any other
> >person or take copies.
> >**********************************************************************
> >
>
Peter Garrod ([log in to unmask])
Archivist
UK National Digital Archive of Datasets (http://ndad.ulcc.ac.uk/)
University of London Computer Centre, 20 Guilford Street,
London WC1N 1DZ, UK
Tel: +44 20 7692 1353
|
