Franklin Consulting
While Dewey is needed for HILT, it is not clear to me that the way that it
is being used in the IESR is of much help to HILT. Most of the entries that
I have looked at are for generic collections (as are most institutional
repositories), so all the IESR says is something like "000, 100, 200, 300,
400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900".
It may be an area that needs some more thought - about what sort of
collections information should be hard coded into the registry, and what
information should (perhaps) be gathered automatically. I have a little
theory that the classifications in the IESR could be aquired by harvesting
what is actually recored in the repository (metadata) and then using HILT to
map it to the appropriate Dewey numbers. But that is only a little theory I
have and hadnt mentioned to anyone - so it is not IESR or JISC policy; just
a thought.
regards
Tom.
Tom Franklin
Franklin Consulting
9 Redclyffe Road
Withington
Manchester
M20 3JR
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 0161 434 3454
mobile: 07989 948 221
skype: tomnfranklin
web: http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/
blog: http://tomfranklin.blogspot.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis
> Nicholson
> Sent: 14 March 2008 15:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: JISC preferred classification scheme
>
> Rachel
>
> Dewey is required in IESR for integration with HILT. We use
> DDC to identify which collections cover which subject areas.
> But that is a long way from saying it is the backbone for the IE
>
> Dennis
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Dennis Nicholson
> Director, Centre for Digital Library Research Information
> Resources Directorate, Livingstone Tower,
> 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XH
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: +44 (0)141 548 2102
> Mobile: 07720 555 298
> http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Rachel BRUCE
> Sent: 12 March 2008 09:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: JISC preferred classification scheme
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
|