Thanks Ann for the clarification. So at collection level Dewey is used. The guide I read on IESR site suggested that you could used one of the the classifications listed and Dewey was not required but was an option. However you'll of course know the details Ann. I can see how reversing a decision on IESR would be hard but it might be worth thinking through the implications of IESR having this rule on other collection services that have a relationship to the IESR.
The expression that "Dewey is the JISC IE backbone" as it was expressed seems a bit misleading but we obviously need to get this clear in any JISC standards and guidelines as we do ask for a record to be entered into IESR. Although this has only applied to a subset of collections.
Perhaps we can discuss this off line.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Bruce,
Programme Director
JISC,
+44(0)7841951300
Sent from Blackberry
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed Mar 12 09:12:22 2008
Subject: Re: JISC preferred classification scheme
Rachel,and All,
IESR (http://iesr.ac.uk) requires that every Collection description
has at least one Dewey term (although this requirement isn't enforced
by software). If this is not in fact a requirement within the JISC IE
then we could relax the requirement for IESR, which appears to have
been based on a false premise. This would greatly reduce our QA and
cataloguing overhead.
Collection descriptions in IESR may also have subject terms in one or
more of the classifications you list below. 'Local' keywords are also
allowed. We actually regret the early decision to allow quite so many
options, because of the QA and software development overheads. But we
cannot really reverse that decision, having existing records in IESR
that make use of all of them.
From developing uses cases it has become apparent that it is a good
idea to have some subject terms that are 'words'. The original remit
of IESR was to be exclusively a machine-to-machine service, and
machines are quite happy to communicate in codes (although even there
a human software developer is involved at some point). But in reality
there are a lot of use cases where a person uses IESR for discovery.
And people generally use words not codes for searching. So, unless a
terminlogy service like HILT comes into play within the use case,
'word' based subject schemes seem more usable. (Though I guess people
may also use simple, ie high-level, code schemes like JACS.)
Best wishes,
Ann
PS. I wear too many hats... This began with my requirements for data
harvested from a repository for a completely different application
from IESR. I didn't realise that my wish for a Dewey term for a
particular application would cause such a discussion!
-------------------------------------------------------
Ann Apps MBCS CITP. Research & Development, MIMAS,
The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
-------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Rachel BRUCE <[log in to unmask]>:
> Can someone shed light on where the fact that JISC chose Dewey as
> the Information Environment backbone comes from?
>
> I think in some areas Dewey has been used as a pragmatic choice but
> it is not the endorsed JISC IE backbone as far as I aware.
>
> Dewey has been used in a fair few JISC developments and services but
> I don't see this as the JISC IE backbone. However I am willing to
> be corrected.
>
> JISC would like a solution that helped interrogate all different
> types of information and resources and to bring them together in
> different ways but across the 'JISC IE' different classification
> schemes and teminologies are implemented. I would say the jury is out.
>
> Of course I may have come to conversation out of context but I don't
> want people thinking the JISC insists on Dewey for everything when
> we don't.
>
> As far as I can see the Information Environment registry has a
> policy that is not exclusive to Dewey; the guidelines say you can
> use one or more of the following:
>
> Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC or Dewey)
> Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus (HASSET)
> Joint Academic Coding Scheme (JACS)
> Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)
> Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
> Universal Decimal Classification (UDC)
> UNESCO Thesaurus
>
> Thanks, Rachel
>
>
>
>
> Rachel Bruce
> Programme Director, Information Environment
> JISC Executive
> 1st Floor
> Brettenham House South
> 5 Lancaster Place
> London
> WC2E 7EN
> Tel: 02030066061
> Mobile:07841 951300
> Fax: 02072405377
> Web: http://www.jisc.ac.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Smith
> Sent: 11 March 2008 16:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: JISC preferred classification scheme
>
> Ann,
>
> Most US and large UK university libraries use LCC. It simply scales
> better. When you have collections of a million plus items Dewey can
> become cumbersome.
>
> Some parts of the BL may use Dewey but judging by the shelfmarks
> displayed when you search their catalogue they don't use it for
> organising items on the shelves.
>
> John.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Apps
>> Sent: 11 March 2008 15:37
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: JISC preferred classification scheme
>>
>> John, and All,
>>
>> I guess that one reason why EPrints is not shipped with Dewey is
>> that one needs a licence to use Dewey.
>>
>> I don't know why JISC chose Dewey as the Information Environment
>> backbone.
>>
>> However The British Library uses Dewey. [And I thought all
>> libraries use Dewey for arranging books on shelves, but that may
>> be a naïve non-librarian's impression.]
>>
>> Ann
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Ann Apps MBCS CITP. Research & Development, Mimas,
>> The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL,
>> UK
>> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 6040
>> Email: [log in to unmask] WWW:
>> http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
>> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Smith
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:57 PM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: [JISC-REPOSITORIES] JISC preferred classification
>> scheme
>> >
>> > Ann,
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
>> > > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Apps
>> > > Sent: 11 March 2008 13:30
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Actually a decision was made quite some time ago that the
>> backbone
>> > > subject classification scheme for the JISC Information
>> Environment
>> > > is Dewey. (Don't shoot me down, I'm only reporting this!)
>> Because
>> > > of that, another application I work on (different from and
>> > > unrelated to the one harvesting from repositories) uses Dewey
>> as
>> > > its backbone subject classification scheme.
>> >
>> > Interesting. I wonder why EPrints is shipped with a basic LC
>> classification tree
>> > instead?
>> >
>> > Also - why Dewey anyway, since almost all large Uni libraries
>> use LCC?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > John Smith.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anything in this message which does not clearly relate to the official
> work of the sender's organisation shall be understood as neither given
> nor endorsed by that organisation.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
