 |
 |
Don't bother with any subject classification whatsoever at the individual IR level. Leave that to the harvesters and automatic extraction from the full texts using AI. It is a waste of time to classify at the IR level; next to no one will use it; it deters authors from self-archiving if they need to do classifying too; it wastes librarians' valuable time if they need to do the classifying; and, in the harvested, OAI-compliant, full-text boolean-searchable OA era, it is simply obsolete (for journal articles). Let's just focus on reaching 100% OA and the rest will take care of itself... Stevan Harnad On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Sally Rumsey wrote: > Roddy and all, > > I would like to use some sort of subject classification for our IR > (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/. The question is what. In our Library > catalogue we use Library of Congress subject headings. There is no way > someone self-depositing could tackle that without specialist training as > it's too big. We have the default LC subject classifications in > ePrints.org at the moment - but they're not detailed enough - we'd need > to edit them quite drastically as we only have to consider social > sciences and engineering etc is out of scope. We haven't done anything > with this list yet - too many other things to tackle > > Another option would be for us to use IBSS subject headings. Those too > are very extensive and are unlikely to be used by other IRs. We'd like > something that is popular with others. > > One further option which may fit the bill is the use of HILCC headings > as developed at Columbia Uni. See > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/inside/projects/metadata/classify/ > > We haven't investigated properly yet, and I don't know if we'd need > formal permission to use them. This would fit with our use of LCSH, > would not be too onerous for self-depositors and is also used by Serials > Solutions which we use. > > Author assigned keywords and full text searching are ok to a point, but > good subject headings will improve browsing for users. I'd be interested > if anyone has any further thoughts on this. If some consensus between > repositories were to be agreed then federated searching will be ok. We > haven't got enough content in our IR for it to be a problem - yet. > > Sally > > Sally Rumsey > eServices Librarian > Library > London School of Economics & Political Science > 10 Portugal Street > London > WC2A 2HD > > 020 7955 7943 > [log in to unmask] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Repositories discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacLeod, Roderick > A > Sent: 13 March 2006 15:38 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository > > In a relatively small database like http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/ > the likelihood of a user finding relevant resources using the Browse by > Subject http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/view/subjects/ or Browse by School or > Research Group http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/view/structure/ is fairly low > unless they have prior knowledge of the existence of something of > relevance. > > The usefulness of subject classification in repositories, from the > information retrieval perspective, grows once numerous repositories are > harvested together and access is facilitated via an aggregated subject > interface. This much increases the likelihood of a potential user to > find material on any particular subject. > > This has been recognised elsewhere: "Ultimately, most seekers and users > of scholarly information are persuing a topic or train of thought. > Although the publisher, author, and the institution with which the > author was associated may be of some interest to seekers and users of > scholarly information, usually those interests pale in comparison to the > topic (and scholarly task) at hand. Ultimately, a good, user-centric > scholarly information system must meet the needs of students and > scholars. These end-users need a system that enables broadcast searching > across a wide variety of e-print servers, digital libraries, and > institutional digital repositories to identify and retrieve potentially > pertinent scholarly content". Peters, T.A. (2002). Digital repositories: > Individual, discipline-based, institutional, consortial, or national? > The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), pp. 414-417. > > And > > "We feel more strongly than ever that there are significant advantages > to a disciplinary approach to electronic services supporting advanced > scholarship and higher education". They continue "Unfortunately, we > have seen little of the structure of the disciplinary community in > electronic services." Stephen, T. and Harrison, T. (2002). Building > systems Responsive to Intellectual Tradition and Scholarly Culture. The > Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1). > > Both reported in http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/perx/analysis.htm > > Roddy MacLeod > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Repositories discussion list > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr > > Sent: 9 March 2006 00:38 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository > > > > A recent discussion between some colleagues on the utility (or > > otherwise) of subject classification in repositories prompted > > me to undertake a brief investigation whose results I present > > here. (I'll also send this to AMSCI, so apologies for any > > duplicate copies that you see.) The discussion has broadly > > been between computer scientists and librarians over whether > > subject classification schemes offer advantages over > > Google-style text retrieval; the study below looks at the > > evidence as demonstrated in the usage of one particular > > repository. As such it doesn't address the intrinsic value of > > classification, but it does offer some insight into the > > effectiveness of navigational tools (including subject > > classification) in the context of a repository. > > > > ---------------- > > The University of Southampton Institutional Repository has > > been in operation for a number of years and an official > > (rather than experimental or pilot) part of its > > infrastructure for just over a year. As part of its > > capabilities, it includes lists of most recently deposited > > material, various kinds of searches, a subject tree based on > > the upper levels of the Library of Congress Classification > > scheme and an organisational tree listing the various > > Faculties, Schools and Research Groups in the University and > > a list of articles broken down by year of publication. These > > all provide what we hope are useful facilities for helping > > researchers find papers (ie by time, subject, affiliation or content). > > > > Over a period of some 29.5 hours from 0400 GMT on March 7th 2006, > > 1978 "abstract" pages (ie eprints records) were downloaded > > from the repository (ignoring all crawlers, bots and spiders). > > > > Of the 1978 downloaded pages, the following URL sources > > (referrers, in web log speak) were responsible: > > 439 - (direct URL, perhaps cut and paste into a browser > > or clicked on from an email client) > > 225 EPRINTS SOTON pages > > 25 OTHER SOTON WEB pages > > 1264 EXTERNAL SEARCH ENGINES > > 21 EXTERNAL WEB PAGES > > > > ie the local repository facilities, including subject views > > and searches, led to only 225/1978 = 11% of all downloads. > > > > > > >