An Analysis on the Discussion List: Young Adult Library Association & Digital Preservation

        Subscription to professional discussion lists allows librarians a place to share interesting information and talk about issues within respective areas of librarianship. This analysis will cover the discussion lists of Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) and Digital Preservation (DigiPres), and hopes to discuss the material posted, things learned, interesting posts that stood-out to the author, likelihood of following continuation, the likelihood of the author recommending this discussion list to others, and what population would likely gain the most from subscription.

            Discussion lists can be the lifeblood for new research and professional development within communities. While all librarians share similarities, having a group of professionals that do exactly what you do available for discussion and idea bouncing is invaluable to the growth of that specialized community. Not only can they offer guidance in your current position, they can offer listings of new positions or professional development seminars/conferences practitioners and researchers may wish to attend. Just like snowflakes, each discussion list is different from the next. This paper compares and contrasts the discussion lists of Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) and Digital Preservation (DigiPres), and hopes to offer insight on what discussion lists really can offer the library community.

What type of material is posted?

YALSA

            The YALSA discussion list is very active, having close to 100 unique posts within a month. The information posted varies, and can range from casting of upcoming movies/TV shows based on young adult literature to help with a reference request. The members also offer recommendations for personal reading as well as professional initiatives within a library. No question or topic is off the table within the realm of young adult literature/patronage on this discussion list.

DigiPres

            The DigiPres discussion list had a moderate amount of posts, 37 within a month. The main material posted is job postings, call to papers, course listings, and conference information. There did not seem to be collaboration between digital preservationists, as there were no responses to the only interesting post I found.

Did you learn anything of interest?

YALSA

            Early in my YALSA subscription, I came upon a cataloging question. I found it rather interesting. It was in regards to genre stickers, stickers that are used to denote the different genres within young adult literature (e.g. dystopian future, romance, science fiction, etc.). Some librarians stated they used colored dots with a posted legend, but patrons did not seem to use it. However, it proved to be easy for librarians to shelve the material with said stickers. I thought this was a unique way of dividing the literature and making it easier for patrons to find books within the genre they enjoyed.

DigiPres

            I was made acutely aware of the job and publication opportunities in the field. I also found it interesting that there was little to no interaction between the users of the discussion list. There was a specific post that I discuss below that I thought would insight discussion, however, there was no feedback.

Did anything specifically stand out?

YALSA

            There was a recent post that discussed transgender individuals (Schultz, 2016), novels that offer reading support, and supplemental information about librarian interactions (what to say/not to say). I thought it was great that this discussion list not only supported and offered information about young adult literature/services, but it also supported the patrons themselves, as well as the librarians. I thought this was great, because dealing with young adults, their time in life is so volatile with hormones and emotions, that having literature and librarian training on how to interact with their specific clientele.

DigiPres

One post really stood out to me (Williams, 2016), a link to an article on cultural genocide that received no response. I thought for sure this would insight conversation, as it very applicable to modern times, but it seemed to be taken as a link only.

Do you plan to continue following this discussion list? Why or why not?

YALSA

            I will definitely continue following the YALSA discussion list, because my guilty pleasure is young adult literature. Books, movies, TV shows, you name it – I am in. I think this is an excellent resource for not only young adult librarians, but also for fans of young adult literature. I feel as though there is enough of variety in information that I will be able to find multiple posts daily interesting and informative.

DigiPres

            While I am interested in digital preservation, I did not find enough useful or interesting information offered by the discussion list members to interest me in maintaining my subscription. If anything, I felt it was “junking up” my inbox.

Would you encourage others to follow it?

If so, what type of person would this discussion list be of most interest to?

YALSA

            I would definitely encourage others to follow this discussion list. Particularly, young adults, those interested in young adult literature, and young adult librarians. Not only is this a valuable list for librarians, if you care about the genre of young adult literature, or the things that are most important to young adult culture right now – this is the place for you. I would even suggest high school English teachers to keep an eye on this message board, as there are a number of invaluable discussions and posts going on here.

DigiPres

            I would only encourage those interested in finding a job in preservation or in presenting preservation research to follow this list. Other than these two topics, the discussion list is useless.

References

Schultz, L (2016, January 28). [yalsa-bk] What Not to Say to a Transgender Person [Electronic
           mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/yalsa-bk

Williams, J (2016, February 9) [Digipres] Why can't we protect cultural heritage? [Electronic
           mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/digipres

Classification of Resources IV: Information Architecture, Digital Libraries, and Social Classification

Subject Access Problem, Revisited

• How does this apply to Web searching?
• Automatic indexing (earlier in semester), such as what Google docs: Does a centralized index address the soda versus pop controversy?
• Today, we explore possibilities that center on the human organizing of Web resources.

Challenge of Providing Access to Web Resource Collections

• Can we build true digital *libraries*?
• Can we systematically arrange Web resource collections by subject in a way that is useful to those seeking information? 
• Can we replicate the "great reduction" phenomenon?
• Can we insert these digital libraries into the lives of our users where the time available for finding information is like to be a major constraint?
• While at home
• While at work

Search vs. Browse of Info Resources

• Search
• Of surrogates
• Bibliographic
• Cataloging
• Verbal subject analysis
• Results list
• A website's search engine
• Browse
• Of actual info resources
• Bibliothecal
• Shelf arrangement
• Classification
• Navigation
• A website's architecture

Organizing Hyperlinks to Web Content

• Hyperlinks to what types of files?
• Text
• Audio
• Video
• Powerpoint
• etc.
• Hyperlinks to whose content and to what kind of structures?
• Content: Our own content ("stickiness") or someone else's content (traditional library approach)
• Structure: Websites, sub-sites or webpages

Classification & Hyperlink Organizing

• Main goal is to transcend the limitations of shelf arrangement in physical libraries:
• E.g. multiple class numbers in classified catalog
• Arranging links in multiple hierarchical locations (poly-hierarchy)
• Another important goal is to take end-user perspective into account:
• "Views" of a website in the case customized for "Future Students", "Current Students", etc. 
• Social bookmarking (let "pop" be pop)

What is the Documentary Unit?

• For collections of hyperlinks to internal Web resources (i.e., self contained websites):
• Keeping users on the webpages of your website
• The emerging field of Information Architecture
• Also referred to as navigation design for self-contained websites with few links to external content.
• About creating navigational and organizational structures that put users in touch with the information they need in a website as efficiently as possible (similar to physical library signage, but also vocabulary control for labels).
• Job titles include:
• Interaction/Interface Designer
• Usability Engineer
• User Experience Designer (UX)
• For collections of hyperlinks to external Web resources:
• Linking to webpages: Google and other search engines
• Linking to web sub-sites: Human constructed link indexes such as those on library websites
• Linking on entire websites: Human constructed link indexes such as those on library websites.

Structural Standards for Web Resources

• Are websites structured link books? No. Not always. That's why we have to worry about the differing structuring of information. 
• There is a lack of standards for structuring websites across publishers:
• Many "vanity" web publishers
• "Commercial publishers are making inroads

How Libraries Organize Web Resources

• Standards approach: Cataloging - use of 856 tag:
• MaRC information
• Example: "Data mining your website
• Customization approach - Web lists by subject:
• Mathematics (list at University of Alabama Rodgers Library)

Faceted Classification (Non-hierarchical)

• Can be a part of a comprehensive system, e.g. Colon Classification
• Ranganathan, PMEST and the Colon Classification 
• Fungal diseases in the rice crops of Madras, 1950-1959: J381,4:433.441'N5
• Can be a part of a hierarchical system as a non-hierarchical specification of the aspects of a subject:
• DDC and LCC have tables for geographic and other facts
• NCSU Catalog
• Home Depot
• Often Used for web organization:
• Iokio CameraFinder

Social Classification

• User added metadata
• Shared resources (commonly used for collections of photos and URLs)
• Organized via third party collaborative websites.
• Also known as folksonomy, ethnoclassification and free-tagging.
• Tagging - the establishment of a relationship between an online resource and a user:
• No centralized vocabulary control
• However, intent is to match an individual with other individuals who not only have the same interest, but also share the same way to express the aboutness of that resource (let "pop" be pop and "soda" be soda)
• Contexts (know what is being organzied!) [ e.g. Photographs]
• Virtual Photographic "Shoeboxes"
• Collections of digital photographs stored at a third party website
• Users "Tag" their photos with descriptors and descriptors can be searched.
• Lack of vocabulary control; however, in this "social" context, netiher precision nor recall is important. 
• EXAMPLE: third party photo aggregator: Flickr

Know your Resource Collection!

• What type of resource?
• Pages or collection of pages?
• Webpages, articles, books or other?
• Are they structured consistently?
• Do they follow conventions of publishing?
• How are resources organized?
• Searchable surrogates?
• Authority control?
• Automatically indexed?
• Human (professional or civilian) indexer?
• Browsable directly?
• Both searchable and browseable?

Article Summary for Lecture # 14 - Manuel

Digital as a Hegemonic Medium for Epistemology and Knowledge Organization

Epistemology was born in the European Modernity in order to control others’ knowledge. Its study deals with foundations, criteria and validation by which scientific knowledge is justified, including historical, political, economic, social, etc. circumstances. Rosa San Segundo Manuel, and Daniel Martinez-Avila believe that the approach of epistemology have changed within the 21^st century. New social conditions, industrial production, advances in medical and scientific research reflect the changing involvement of technology in day-to-day life. They cite the internet as a bringer of change in media, scientific and epistemic contexts.

                Manuel, et al., break down information into three main ages of human history:

• The Oral Age – Primitive ideas of social organization and structuring were developed. Information was transferred orally, kept internally.
• The Written Age – Developed a need to organize all the written knowledge. Writing and the role of the printing press allowed ideas to be shared with a wider audience.
• The Digital Age – Current age. Printed and oral information become digitized and uploaded onto the web.

The authors also note the organization of knowledge in the digital environment is represented, invented, and articulated with two new fundamental instruments: a material one, digital technology, and a symbolic one, the deposited culture.

                According to Manuel, et al., culture is being subordinated to technology, and theorize that soon there will be a digital repository of all constructed objects of a culture – making the digital not only the instrument and the location, but also the content itself. In this new culture, individuals will participate through blogs, wikis, and social networks. They believe digital natives have a new way of thinking in the Digital Age that embraces the hybridization of materials, formats, and texts, globalization of information, connectivity, virtuality, and hypertextuality.

                These digital natives do not read the same way printed text is meant to be read, and have new ways of learning, memorizing, and participating via Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies. They are immersing themselves into digital reality- they have an electronic mailbox, participate in social networks, communicate via blogs, wikis, etc. The authors believe this will lead to a change in epistemology, which will be a sort of post-epistemology that approaches a new structure of knowledge.

                Overall, I agree with the authors’ ideas about the evolution of technology, and how the digital world is slowly changing the world in which we organize, study, and evaluation information. However, I found Manuel and Martinez-Avila’s article a little too brief. There were several ideas presented that I felt could be expounded upon, and found their highly technical vocabulary hard to decipher and navigate without a second pass. This being the case, it was a little difficult to extrapolate information to create this post, but do feel as though the article has its merits. This article does present some very interesting points about the future of information study, so if you are interested in how the digitization of our lives is affecting this, then this article is definitely for you!

_____________________________________________________________________________

For more information and clarification, check out the full article (citation below)!

Manuel, R., & Martinez-Avila, D. (2014). Digital as a hegemonic medium for epistemology and knowledge organization. Advances in Knowledge Organization 14:96-100.

Classification of Resources III: Research Library Schemes

Classification Definitions

• Classification - the act of organizing a body of knowledge into a systematic order
• In libraries: the systematic arrangement by subject of books and other materials on shelves, or of catalog and index entries, in a manner that is most useful to those who read or those who seek a definite piece of information.
• Shelving device
• Organization device

Characteristic of a Classification System

• Inclusive and comprehensive
• Systematic
• Flexible and expansive (i.e. hospitable)
• Employ terminology that is clear and descriptive
• Indexed

Classified Shelf Arrangement of Books

• Collocating objective: bringing like things together on library shelves:
• Subject criterion: But what about books on multiple topics?
• Author criterion: But what about books by multiple authors?
• Need a system for the unique identification of resources in open stack libraries through the use of notational systems and call numbers.

Notational Systems

• Notation marks (aka "classmarks") represent a book's subject class, including its relation to other subject classes in a classification scheme.
• Most common types:
• Pure - e.g., DDC employs Arabic numerals
• Mixed - e.g., LCC employs an alpha-numeric notation
• Mnemonics:
• Repeating class notation patterns throughout classification
• This technique is also used in the MaRC system

Shelf Arrangement and Sub-arrangement

• Library classification schemes provide:
• A systematic method for shelf arrangement in open stack libraries
• A systematic method for sub-arrangement within each class
• To accomplish this goal, catalogers synthesize (i.e. create) class numbers to represent the subject of a book
• This process remains transparent to the user (i.e. the user is more interested int he fact that books are collocated on the shelf rather than how the numbers were determined.

Cuttering to Create a Call Number

• Used to create call numbers (UIs) for individual library collections.
• Provides the link between the surrogate record an the actual item in the collection
• Provides for both subject and non-subject (e.g. author) oriented sub-arrangement in open stack libraries. 
• After the class notation is determined, then the cuttering process begins.
• Use a cutter table:
• There may be more than one cutter table floating around!
• Cuttering is a flexible process; only use table as a guide
• Steps for cuttering:
• Determine the first letter of main entry (most often taken from 100 tag; but could be 245 tag)
• Use number associated with second letter of main entry
• Add additional numbers until call number is unique 
• Add date
• You may have 1 or 2 cutter numbers, BUT you may never have 3.
• In the LCC, cuttering instructions are given in the schedules:
• Assists in topical, geographical and other non-main entry-based sub-arrangement
• Occasionally, this involves double cuttering, thus precluding the use of main entry-based cutters. 

LCC - General Points

• Mixed notations
• All letters are not used (reserved for expansion)
• Subject specialists develop and maintain the class schedules, rather than centralized editors as is the case with the DDC.
• Designed to meet the needs of the collection of the Library of Congress.
• Based on literary warrant: Schedules developed with reference to what has been published. 
• Hierarchical; however, NOT reflected in notation. 
• LCC Classification outline:
• Divided into main classes according to academic discipline or areas of study and then into sub-classes representing branches of those disciplines
• Larger range of letters for History (C-G) and Social Sciences (H-L)
• Numericals used range from 1-9999 with frequent gaps

LCC is Essentially Enumerative

• Aspects of subjects are explicitly provided for (i.e. enumerated) in the schedules:
• More "pigeonholes" created in advance to represent very specific topics and topical aspects.
• However, tables are also used to synthesize complex class notations (not as often as with the DDC)
• As an enumerative classification, the LCC schedules are more voluminous than many other schemes:
• 50 volumes
• 10,000 pages.

Consistent Structuring: Martel's 7 points

• Initially, Charles Martel provided basis for consistent structuring across divisions:
• General forms: periodicals, societies, dictionaries, etc
• Theory, Philosophy
• History
• Treatises, General works
• Law, Regulations, State relations (now relocated to K)
• Study and teaching
• Special subjects and their subdivision from general to specific

LCC has Many Editors 

• LCC has been referred to as a series of special classifications (though compare with NLM)
• However, individual LCC schedules are structured identically:
• Preface
• Broad outline
• Detailed outline
• The schedule, itself
• Any necessary, auxiliary tables
• Detailed index

Revising LCC with Topic Subdivisions

• Constitute the bulk of the expansion of classes and subclasses
• EXAMPLE: Women Suffrage in U.S. (JK1880)
• Note geographical subdivision of "Women's Suffrage. Women's right to vote" - in this case, cutter by location
• Also note geographic subdivision under subtopic "Biography"

Procedures for Revision and Expansion

• Proposals for changes originate with LC catalogers:
• Anomalies
• New topics
• Some methods for expansion:
• Using unused letters (I, O,W, X and Y)
• Adding a third letter (or sometimes a fourth)
• Extending existing numbers decimally
• Expanding use of cuttering

General Steps for Classifying with LCC

• Because of disciplinary aspects of LCC, first check for appropriate schedule to match subject of item in hand and then determine the best class number within the selected schedule. 
• Class item in hand with similar works:
• Consult existing records
• Consult class numbers mapped from assigned LCSH
• Consult LCC outlines

Classifying General Works

• Under most numbers with subdivisions, a number is designated for "general works."

Classifying Works on Single Topics

• Always use the most specific class number that is co-extensive with the subject matter of the work.
• If no co-extensive number exists, then the next appropriate broader number should be used. 

Classifying Works by Time Period

• For works treating a topic with regard to a particular time period. For those works spanning two periods use earliest. 
• DC History of France:
• DC725 Earliest to 1515
• DC727 16th century
• DC729 17th-18th century
• DC731 1789-1815
• DC733 1815-1870
• DC735 1871-1914
• DC736 1914-1921
• DC737 1922-

Multi-Faceted Single Topic Works

• Works covering multiple facets of a single topic.
• If available, use a class number representing all facets:
• Idea of the English landscape painter: genius as Alibi in the eary ninetheenth century by Kay Dian Kriz
• ND1354.5.K75 1997
• If number covering all facets is not available, go with the emphasized or more prominent facet:
• Elizabethan mineatures, by Carl Winter
• ND1337.G7.W5 1955

Classifying Works on Multiple Topics

• A work on two or three topics treated equally:
• Use number for the topic treated first
• QD412.A7 C53 1994 - Chemistry of organic arsenic, antimony, and bismuth compounds
• A work on four or more topics:
• Use a general number that encompasses all numbers chosen
• RA566.3.C48 1992 - Changing U.S. health care; a study of four metropolitan areas

Classifying Works with Phase Relations

• A work covering the relationship between two topics is classed in the most specific number covering the relationship:
• QK46.5.H85 P66 2001 - Botany of desire; a plant's eye view of the world
• QK46.5.H85 - Botany > Human-plant relationship
• A work covering the influence of one topic on another is classed with the topic being influenced:
• LA2317.T8 M3 1899x - Henry Tutwiler and the influence of the University of Virginia on education in Alabama
• LA2317.T8 - History of U.S. Education > Individual biography

Cuttering for Geographical Aspects

• Geographical cuttering option is often available in parts of the schedules:
• Use either general or specialized cutter table
• EXAMPLE:
• Visual Arts Education:
• N353.A-W - General works in Visual Arts in U.S.
• N354.A-Z - General works in Visual Arts in a state
• N355.A-Z - General works in Visual arts in a city

Cuttering Sub-topics - "Reserve Cutters"

• Cuttering by topical aspect is also sometimes available - this is termed "reserve cuttering"
• Style, Composition, Rhetoric:
• P301 - General Works
• P301.3.A-Z - General Works by region or country
• P301.5.A-Z - Special Aspects A-Z
• P301.5.134 - Idioms
• P301.5.P73 - Propoganda

Classification of Resources II: Public Library Schemes

Classification Definitions:

• The act of organizing a body of knowledge into a systematic order
• In libraries: The systematic arrangement by subject of books and other materials on shelves, or of catalog and index entries, in a manner that is most useful to those who read or those who seek a definite piece of information
• Shelving Device
• Organization Device

Characteristics of a Classification System 

• Inclusive and comprehensive
• Systematic
• Flexible and expansive/hospitable to new knowledge
• Employ terminology that is clear and desriptive
• Indexed

Notational Systems

• Notation marks (a.k.a. "classmarks") represent a book's subject class, including its relation to other subject classes in a classification scheme. 
• Most common types:
• Pure - e.g. DDC employs Arabic numerals
• Mixed - e.g. LLC employs an alpha-numeric notation
• Mnemonics:
• Repeating class notation patterns throughout classification
• This technique is also used in the MaRC system

Shelf Arrangement and Sub-arrangement

• Library classification schemes provide:
• A systematic method for shelf arrangement in open stack libraries
• A systematic method for sub-arrangement within each class
• To accomplish this goal, catalogers synthesize (i.e., create) class numbers to represent the subject of a book. 
• This process remains transparent to the user, i.e., the user is more interested in the fact that books are collocated on the shelf rather than how the numbers were determined.

Historical Development of DDC

• First published in 1876 - "A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloging and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library."
• Current edition: 23rd 
• Electronic version available
• Most widely used classification scheme in the world (135 countries - translated into 30 languages)
• Innovations:
• Relative index
• Integrity of numbers (with 2nd edition)

Conceptual Framework of DDC

• Basic classes are organized by discipline (i.e., fields of study).
• Divisions of DDC:
• Ten main classes (0XX, 1XX, 2XX, etc), which together cover the entire world of knowledge
• Each main class is divided into ten divisions (100 total divisions in DDC)
• Each division is divided into ten sections (1000 total sections in DDC)
• Class 000 is most general
• Used for works not limited to any specific discipline (e.g., encyclopedias, newspapers, general periodicals)
• Used for certain specialized disciplines that deal with knowledge and information (e.g., library science, computer science, journalism)
• Each of the other main classes (1XX to 9XX) comprises a major disciplien or group of related disciplines. 
• DDC IS ARRANGED PRIMARILY BY DISCIPLINE AND NOT BY SUBJECT; therefore, a given subject is likely to appear under more than one class numbers.

Relative Index

• Disciplinary focus of DDC causes subjects to be scattered across the classification; the Relative Index to the schedules is needed to collocate. 
• Relative index relates subjects to the various disciplines to which they may belong:
• Journalism - generally found at 070.4
• Journalism - civil rights issues at 323.445
• Journalism - sociology at 302.23
• Dewey's theoretical contribution to library classification.

Principle of Hierarchy

• Structural Hierarchy (inheritance):
• Whatever is true of the whole is true of the parts
• This is termed "hierarchical force"
• EXAMPLE:
• All classmarks under 5XX are related to the natural sciences and/or mathematics
• All classmarks under 612.1... are related to blood and circulation
• Notational hierarchy (relationships between concepts):
• Subordinate: 621.4 is subordinate to 621
• Coordinate: 621.4 is coordinate with 621.6
• Superordinate: 621 is superordinate to 621.4

Revision Process for DDC

• Suggestions sent to Library of Congress
• Reviewed by:
• LC - Decimal Classification Division
• OCLC - Forest Press
• 6 DDC editors
• Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)
• Role of EPC (Editorial Policy Committee)
• Works closely with DDC editors to:
• Suggest changes
• Facilitate innovations
• Monitor general development of the Classification
• Reviews all versions of the Classification:
• Print
• WebDewey
• Full edition
• Abridged edition
• EPC Membership
• 10 member international committee
• Elected membership represents Dewey users worldwide
• Members come from all types of libraries
• Current representation:
• American Library Association
• Australian Committee on Cataloging
• Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
• Library of Congress
• National Library of Canada
• OCLC
• Types of Revisions
• Expansion:
• Introduction of new subject as part of a class scheme
• Provides more minute subdivisions
• Reduction:
• Rarely used subdivisions are deleted and marked by brackets([]) in the class scheme listing
• "Starvation policy" allows DDC to phase out the deleted numbers with the next edition printed
• Relocations:
• To rectify an improper placement
• To eliminate duel provisions
• To make room for new subjects when there is not available number room
• To realign fields of knowledge
• Reconstructed Schedules ("Phoenix schedules")
• An entire schedule is reconstructed without regard to previous divisions
• Rarely used due to integrity of numbers practice

Classifying with DDC

• First, determine subject of work
• Subject analysis is central to library classification
• Must determine the intent of the author by examining:
• Title - never the sole source 
• Table of contents - lists main topics discussed
• Preface and introduction - can indicate author's intent
• Scanning text, itself - provides guidance and confirmation
• Bibliographic references - can also list topics discussed
• Outside sources - helpful for verifying advanced subject
• Second, determine discipline of work
• Guiding principle is that a work is classed int he discipline for which it is intended rather than in the discipline from whicht he work is derived
• This enables works that are used together to be shelved together
• EXAMPLE: Zoologist's book on agricultura pest control would be classed with other books on pest conrtol rather than with other books on zoology.
• Third, translate findings into appropriate DDC class

     *NB*

• What to do with multiple subjects/same discipline:
• Class works covering interrelated subjects with the subject that is being acted upon (rule of application):
• "Shakespeare's Influence on Keats" with Keats
• "Great Depression's Impact on American Art" with American Art
• Class works covering two subjects equally with the subject whose number appears first in the schedules (first-of-two rule):
• There may be exceptions in instructions in the schedules
• Class works covering three or more subjects that are all subdivisions of a broader subject with the first higher subject that includes them all (rule of three):
• "History of Portugal [946.9, Sweden [948.5] and Greece [949.5]" is classed with the history of Europe at 940.
• What to do with more than one discipline:
• These works are examples of interdisciplinary research
• Interdisciplinary is predictable; therefore, there may already be a place in the schedules for works that are interdisciplinary:
• Check for interdisciplinary numbers such as 305.231
• Class works not give an interdisciplinary number in the discipline given the fullest treatment.

Key Features of Schedules and Tables

• Summaries
• Summaries provide an overview of the structure of a class
• "Birds Eye View" of a section of the DDC to help classifier to focus in on the possible classes numbers for a work
• Because of hierarchical force, summaries at main class, divisional and sectional levels hold for all subordinate class numbers
• Entries
• Each entry contains a Dewey class number and descriptive information:
• Heading
• Notes
• Additional Dewey class numbers may be:
• In parenthesis - these numbers provide alertatives to standard practices
• In brackets - these numbers represent subjects that have been discontinued or relocated
• Notes
• Notes provide additional information that is not obvious from a class' position in the notational hierarchy.
• Classes of notes:
• Notes that describe what is found in a class
• Including notes
• Notes that describe what is found in other classes
• Notes that explain changes or irregularities
• Scope notes - definition used within a knowledge organizing system to say what a term means within that system (see 700)
• Former-heading notes reflect that the formal label for the classmark has changed (see 281.63)
• Variant-name notes notate that a specific number goes by different names (see 332.32)
• Class-here notes - confirmation that you're in the correct place (see 371.192)
• Including notes - "Including" is a code word that notates a specific number is about to go through an expansion (see 362.16)
• Class-elsewhere notes - offers other places that the book might ought to be placed(see 791.43)
• See references notes (see 577.7)
• See-also references (see 584.3)
• Revision notes are used to indicate when a subdivision or class has been completely or extensively revised.
• Discontinued notes - (see 004.696)
• Relocation notes - (see 687.43)

Number Building

• Synthesis of two numbers to create a complex Dewey class number.
• Can be multiple Dewey numbers synthesized into a single number:
• Book on advertising in libraries (659.1902)
• Use 659.19 for advertising in special organizations
• 02 for libraries (dropping the trailing 0 from 020)
• Can be synthesized:
• Using one of seven Dewey tables
• Using a "Number-built note" (see 353.13263

DDC Tables

• Table 1 - Standard Subdivisions:
• Contains mnemonics for standard subdivisions
• Used to add facets to the class number (education is 072, geographical is 09, etc)
• Used to connect a subject with a standard facet
• - 01 Philosophy and theory
• - 02 Miscellany
• - 03 Dictionaries, encyclopedias, concordances
• - 04 Special topics
• - 05 Serial publications
• - 06 Organizations and management
• - 07 Education, research, related topics
• - 08 History/ description with respect to kinds of persons
• - 09 Historical, geographic, persons treatment
• When analyzing Table One numbers (and Table One numbers ONLY), looking for the connecting "0" between subject and facet
• Look up subject class in the schedules
• Look up facet class in Table One
• Most of the time, the connecting "0" is the first occurence:
• 635.13074 = 635.13 for Carrots and 074 for catalogs
• But not always: 020.25 = 020 for LIS and 025 for Directories
• Table 2 - Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons:
• Contains mnemonics for geographical areas, etc. 
• Used to add geographic facets to the class number:
• United States: 973
• Southeastern States: 975
• Alabama: 976.1
• Tuscaloosa County: 976.184
• Table 3 - Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms:
• Contains mnemonics for subdivisions for the arts, for individual literatures, for specific literary forms
• Tables 3A-3C needed to determine specific notation to be used
• Table 4 - Subdivisions of individual languages and language families
• Table 5 - Racial, ethnic, national groups
• Table 6 - Languages
• Table 7 - Groups of persons

Classification of Resources I: Concepts, Problems, Issues

Two Perspectives on Classification

• Classificationists (i.e. editor) - those who create and edit the conceptual places to put things
• Need to create workable classifications
• What is the basis for a classification?
• What are the ramifications of a classification?
• How hospitable is a classification to changes in knowledge over time?
• Classifiers - those who place things into these created places when organizing
• Need places to put things
• Is there a place for this thing?
• Is this think with other like things?

Classical Classification

• Aristotle and the natural world:
• Mutual exclusivity: "in or out" - something is an animal or it is not an animals
• Inheritance: based on the assumption that there is a natural hierarchy to the world (all animals share same characteristics that differentiate them from plants)
• Basis for scientific classification
• Medieval scholastics and their resources:
• Classification of scholarly materials based on the academic divisions of study of that time - 
• This classification reflected those areas taught to scholars. 
• Classification provides the basis for shelf arrangement.

Scientific (Linnaean) Classification

• Largest example of formal classification:
• Managed over time by classificationists
• Binomial nomenclature (genus/species)
• Specific rules for classifiers to follow (e.g., members of the same species are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring)
• Follows classical approach:
• Mutual exclusivity of classes
• Inheritance
• EXAMPLES:
• Two species contexts:
• Human classification
• Whale classification
• Dealing with changes in the classification itself:
• Evolution of existing species - e.g. newly emerging drug resistant infectious diseases.
• Newly discovered species - e.g., the division of Monera into two distinct kingdoms

Library Classification

• Inspired by scientific classification:
• Early library classificationists were leaders in the application of classification principles outside of the scientific domain
• However, book classification provided challenges in comparison to the classification of natural objects
• Is a book like a starfish?
• Historically U.S. libraries used classification for shelf arrangement, while European libraries used classification to facilitate retrieval of surrogates:
• Open stacks require a system for shelf arrangement of books
• Closed stacks rely on the catalog to provide logical groupings

The Nature of Book Classification

• Collocating objective: Bringing like things together on library shelves:
• Subject criterion: What about books on multiple topics?
• Author criterion: What about books by multiple authors?
• Subject/author criteria: What about books by the same author on different topics?
• Solving the need for a system of unique identification in open stack libraries through notational systems an call numbers.

Questions in Book Classification

• How do libraries provide for the collocation of like books (2nd Cutter objective) while at the same time facilitating the retrieval of known items (1st Cutter objective)?
• Cutter's solution - two part call number:
• Call number is made up of the class notation (classmark) and the Cutter number
• The classmark provides for the fulfillment of the collocation objective
• The system for Cuttering provides unique call within each library that provides for the known item retrieval objective - helps with unique idenfitifaction.
• A book is not a starfish:
• Books, as physical objects can only be in one place at a time, even if they are about multiple topics
• Libraries do not buy multiple copies
• Conceit of the cataloger revisited
• What about networked resources: Is a website a starfish?
• Comparison of I.S. and European libraries:
• U.S. libraries: open stacks and "mark and park"
• European libraries: closed stacks and classified cataloging (i.e., the assignment of book to multiple classes)
• How many books should be grouped together in the stacks (the efficient browsing problem):
• Broad classification
• Detailed ("close") classification
• How should books within each class be displayed (the subarrangement problem)
• We will compare the needs of the typical research library, with its larger collection of specialized books, with the typical public library, with its smaller collection of broader books.

Four Types of Library Classifications

• Universal: Intended to organize all of knowledge:
• DDC
• LCC
• UDC
• National General: Same as universal, but limited to a specific country:
• Nederlandse Basisclassifatie
• Subject Specific: Intended to organize a domain:
• NLM Classification
• Homegrown: Built as needed (e.g., Yahoo directory)

Classification Concepts

• Broad versus Close Classification
• General strategy employed by individual libraries. 
• How many class numbers to use?
• The larger collection, the closer the classification (i.e., more books require more detailed class numbers)
• Can vary within a library's collections (i.e., a given library may have larger collections in a certain subject area)
• Otherwise, there will be too many books classed together or there will be too few books under each class (each of which impede efficient browsing)
• Classification of Knowledge versus Classification of a Particular Collection
• Relates to the intent of the classification:
• Classification of knowledge approach provides pigeonholes for all subjects in advance of the use of that classification
• Particular collection approach has mechanism to create new pigeonholes as resources are added to collection (literary warrant)
• DDC began as universal, but updates to the classification are now through literary warrant.
• LCC began through literary warrant, but the nature of the LC collection makes the LCC a  de facto universal scheme.
• Notational Integrity Over Time
• Attempting to Maintain the same meaning of a class notation over time:
• Response to the problem of accounting for the growth of knowledge over time
• A challenge for the classificationist
• Classifications can be designed to handle the growth of knowledge
• Fixed versus Relative Location in Closed and Open Stack Libraries
• In terms of efficient storage, what is the most obvious characteristic of an open stack library?
• When storage space is at a premium, use the fixed location approach of closed stacks libraries. 
• Resources can be efficiently stored by size
• The call number is an accession number
• Relative location approach is employed in open stack libraries:
• Physical spaces in collection allow for growth of the collection without a lot of shifting
• Relative addressing is the key
• A library collection is a single, linear sequence of books
• The Case of Journal Shelf Arrangement
• Alphaetic or classified?
• Alphabetic by title:
• Less costly to manage
• What about title changes?
• Problem: Journals on the same subject are scattered across the collection
• Classified by subject:
• Journals arranged by subject
• Title changes are accommodated
• Problem: Users must look up call number to find journal (this is not the case with alphabetical arrangement)
• Faceted Classification (Non-hierarchical)
• Can be part of a comprehensive system, e.g., Colon Classification:
• Can be part of hierarchical system as non-hierarchical specification of the aspects of a subject:
• DDC and LCC have tables for geographic and other facets
• Often used for web organization:

Verbal Subject Analysis III: Webpage Databases (a.k.a. "Search Engines")

Human vs. Automatic Indexing

• Both are related to the subject analysis of information resources.
• Human indexing is used to describe the subject analysis of various periodical databases.
• Automatic indexing is a term used for the subject analysis operations by the computer algorithms of various webpage databases (a.k.a. search engines).
• Research from the 60s-80s were trying to get a computer to calculate what articles were about. The most frequent words, articles like a, an, the, etc., don't really tell you much about the article, neither do the least used words. The key is finding the sweet spot based  on what the author usually writes about.

Why Webpage Database?

• It is always important to know the documentary unit of an information database. 
• The adjective associated with database is always a cue to the documentary unit. 
• Webpage databases are informational databases in which a webpage is the documentary unit. 
• They are also known as search engines and discovered databases.

Analysis of Websites and their Structure

• What are webpages? What are websites? Webpages:Websites as pages:books
• Standards (or lack thereof) for the authoring of web sites and webpages
• HTML and other markup languages
• Editors
• What are the implications of the lack of authoring standards for web-based information resources?

Location of Webpage Subject Metadata

• In webpage headers: For individual webpages, subject metadata can be created by authors and included in HTML headers.
• In separate metadata record databases:
• Subject metadata can be created by intermediaries using Dublin Core schema
• In search engines, subject metadata is inferred "automatically" by computer algorithm.

Search Engine Questions

• For greater understanding we need to be able to answer:
• Why do search engines produce different results the exact same query?
• What is the principle for ranking the display of search engine records in response to a query?

The Term "Search Engine"

• The term has become the common designation for webpage databases, However, in actuality, webpage databases have three parts:
• Spidering/crawling software to collect webpages.
• Indexing software to build the index of surrogate records.
• Retrieval software to facilitate retrieval of surrogates.

Automatic Indexing in Context

1. Obtain information resource - spidering/crawling
• Steps for spidering/crawling:
• Computers owned by search engine retrieve documents by clicking on all hyperlinks on each retrieved webpage
• Determination is made whether a webpage needs to be indexed (because it is new) or reindexed (if it has already been indexed)
• Determination is made whether reindexing is warranted
• New webpages and those meeting criteria for reindexing are then placed in the indexing queue
2. Describe information resource in surrogate record - read off webpages by indexing software
• Left Side elements must be inferred by searcher:
• Examine structure of retrieved records
• Examine advanced search interface
• Element sets are not standard, i.e., they will vary across search engines.
• Right Side Content:
• What is the source for the content?
• Authority control?
3. Subject analyze information resource in surrogate record - indexing software:
• Verbal - inferred by computer algorithm
• Classification - inferred by computer algorithm
• Subject Indexing in Search Engines
• The subject fields of webpage surrogate records include the words that describe what the webpage is about. 
• Right side subject content is inferred through the application of proprietary algorithms.
• Subject terms added to surrogate records are weighted:
• Doc #1: SU = dogs (.99); breeding (.87);dachshund (.30)
• Doc #2: cats (.92); dogs(.44); dachshund (.03)
• The weights are computed by proprietary algorithm.

Retrieval from Search Engines

• Unlike bibliographic databases, in which the ordering of retrieved surrogate records is reverse chronological, search engines use a relevance-based ranking.
• The search engine component of a search engine takes the entered query and compares it to the terms to the index.
• The documents that are retrieved first are those that contain a higher "relevance" score:
• Doc #1: SU = dogs (.99); breeding (.87);dachshund (.30)
• Doc #2: cats (.92); dogs(.44); dachshund (.03)
• "dog" query would rank document #1 ahead of document #2
• "breeding" query would rank document #1 ahead of document #2
• "cats"query would rank document #2 ahead of document #1

How are Subject Weights Calculated?

• Conventional methods (Dating from the 1950s) for automatically inferring what a document is about include the following three techniques:
• Frequency of word occurrences
• Location of words occurrences
• Size of word occurrences
• In the web era, however, these techniques did not scale well to meet the needs of databases containing billions of records:
• Could facilitate retrieval of relevant documents, but could not distinguish between "good" and "bad" documents.
• Were also subject to manipulation by authors desiring higher search engine retrieval (spamming)

Two responses to Early Indexing Failure

• Yahoo! era (late 1990's)
• Human indexing (website directories)
• More discussion during lectures on classification. 
• Google era (since 1999)
• Additional criteria introduced to infer aboutness, e.g.,;
• $ - paid submissions, such as Alta Vista
• Quality - PageRank algorithm of Google

Google Approach to Authomatic Indexing

• Issue addressed by Google concerns the quality problem: How to cause the "best" documents to rise to the top of a set of retrieved webpages.
• Solution concerns identifying additional criteria to include int he subject weighting algorithm.
• Google maintains additional metadata elements for each surrogate record in its index of webpages:
• How many other webpages link to a given webpage
• The more webpages (i.e. linkers) a dachshund webpage has poiting to it, the more quality it has.
• This factors into the weight assigned to the "dachshund" descriptor inthe subject field of its surrogate record
• Who are the linkers
• Those linkers that have a higher quality rank are given more weight than those linkers with a lower quality rank.

Article Summary for Lecture # 10 - Northedge

and beyond:

information retrieval on the World Wide Web

Northedge defines a web directory as “a human compiled list of links to web pages, typically organized into a hierarchical structure of subject categories.” Back in 1994, a mere 3 years after Berners-Lee created the “Web”; there were less than 10,000 websites. This number inflated to almost 3.5 million in 1998, and in 2006, it was estimated to be at over 100 million. Imagine if those websites were books. Without anyone to organize and sort through all of them, it would take forever for us users to retrieve any kind of information, let alone navigate the sea of changes that authors and creators make on a daily basis to their sites. If a librarian is involved, the user can submit their queries to the librarian.

                In the case of the internet, search engines are the librarians. Several criteria measure the quality of the search engine, such as:

• The size of the corpus – the more books the librarian can search, the better.
• The speed of the answer – if we do not get our information quickly, we will find another search engine.
• The availability of service – if it is not available when it is needed, the users are going to find another search engine.

·         The accuracy of results – if the information the user gets back is not what they are looking for, and then they will find another search engine that will return related results. However, if the three preceding criteria are not met, accurate data is not going to be important. (See this post).

Search engines require their users to submit their searches through a search box, which allows the user to choose whatever terms they like – unlike web directories, which constrain users to search using vocabulary chosen by the indexer. Since it might take a while for a search engine to sift through over 100 million constantly changing websites, it only makes sense to implement an indexing program (called a spider or robot). This program accesses web pages, analyses their contents and records the results in a database (referred to as an “index”), which enables fast access to sought information and bridges the gap between the search engine and the requested content.

                Today, one of the most used search engine is Google. Google’s software agent (indexer), called “Googlebot” continually locates billions of web pages, analyses the content, and save the result in the Google index. The algorithms it uses are a company secret, as they are what sets Google apart from its competitors (Bing, Yahoo, etc.). Googlebot breaks down webpages into words and examines their context within the page (position – is it in a header, sub header, body text, etc.) and sources are returned to user, based on the algorithms weighted scale, in order of assumed most relevant to least.

                In addition, while Google’s search box may seem to ask “What subject do you want information on?” in reality, it is asking “What word or combination of words will be most likely to appear on web pages that address the subject I am interested in, an least likely to appear on pages that are irrelevant to me?”. This may trip up users who are unfamiliar with how search engines work, and this may be the one negative Northedge presents about search engines – there is no one-to-one correspondence between words and meanings, and a single word may have multiple meanings (search for Java – the country – and only results about the computer programming language are returned). He also offers information on alternatives to search engines, which include META tags (the assignment of subject keywords by the web content creators), and folksonomies/tagging (creation of a taxonomy by the collective actions of users on the Web – see del.icio.us and flickr). These alternatives are somewhat controversial, because users and/or creators can deliberately assign misleading or inaccurate keywords to the content for financial gain or malicious reasons.

                Ultimately, Northedge offers insight into the possible future of web searches, computer-generated indexes, but the data contained in those indexes may be driven by data sets produced by human indexing techniques and human linguistic research. I agree with this assertation, because it seems as more technologies are developed and released, the search process becomes more streamlined and tailored to what the user REALLY wants from their search. This article is very informative, and if you want to know more about the inner-workings of search engines, this is a fascinating read. I definitely came away knowing more about what happens once I search for "cat videos" on Google. 

______________________________________

To read the whole article, see the citation below:

Northedge, R. (2007, April). Google and beyond: Information retrieval on the World Wide Web. The Indexer, 25(3), 192-195.

Article Summary for Lecture # 9 - Rotenberg

The Author Challenge: 

Identification of Self 

in the Scholarly Literature

                Open access publishing, digital repositories, and contribution to scientific thought outside of traditional publishing are a reflection of the faster paced research arena. In the era of expanding research, to enable proper attribution of contributions to the correct individual some items need to be addressed:

• Individual researchers are under increased pressure to find collaborators and to keep up-to-date with field trends, which is imperative to professional branding and reputation management.
• The management of researcher identity by universities and other research organizations is a time-consuming process that institutions are required to do for institutional and government research assessment exercises.
• Publishers, granting organizations, and professional and academic societies need to properly identify the researchers utilizing their systems for tracking and management purposes, and for finding reviewers.

                The main issue of name ambiguity is how it affects career advancement, tenure, global collaboration between researchers, and grant funding. According to Rotenberg and Kushmerick proper identification is contributed to by paying attention to the following:

• Name Variations
• Many authors share the same first and/or last name.
• Authors use different names on different papers.
• Middle initials may or may not be included with the author name.
• Non-Roman names may have a variety of spellings and word orders. They may also be improperly transliterated.
• Increase in Global Research Output
• Scholarly research around the world has been increasing. The number of publications from China has increased from over 20,000 papers in 1998 to 112,000 in 2008.
• This global research has introduced new forms of communications, and proper identification can help accurately attribute scholars' activities.
• Funding and Tenure Requirements
• Academic institutions within Australia and the United Kingdom are required to participate in government run research evaluations, which require institutions to supply accurate reports of publication output for their university faculty.
• Highly multi-authored papers (more than 50,100,200, and 500) authors involved are on the rise.

           Keeping these in mind, and properly identifying various facets can let us know who researchers are, what they do, where they work, what kinds of information they publish, who they are connected to, an who they want to know. This comes in handy when making connections for future research or collaboration. Thomas Reuters is on the forefront of normalizing the collection of scholar data. in 2006, he introduced two features into Web of Science:

• Author finder - a search aid that utilizes the various indexed fields in Web of Science, such as author names, institution names, and subject areas to help a user identify the correct set of records for their chosen author. 
• Distinct Author Sets - aid that presents sets or clusters of publications that have been computationally grouped together using a proprietary algorithm, which helps users to pinpoint the publications of an individual. The algorithm takes into account a number of data points like author names, institution names, and citing and cited author relationships. 

           A really neat element of Web of Science is that users can provide feedback on author sets. This feedback alongside automatic clustering takes advantage of the best information and resources available. Another innovation of Reuters is ResearcherID. ResearcherID offers scholars and researchers the opportunity to connect their scholarly works to a unique identifier called a ResearcherID number. These numbers are attached to the individual throughout their career across disciplines and institutions, and the interface allows the chance for scholars to network through a number of search options (geographic heat map, keyboard, country tag clouds, and traditional fielded search page). However, you do not have to have an account to search public profiles, which allows the budding researcher to make contacts.

         ResearcherID allows users to classify themselves into a given area of research/expertise, and to integrate their profile on their website, so those perusing the web can find them and link to their work. As of July 2011, 127,000 unique ResearcherID profiles were created and over 2 million publication records from Web of Science  have been claimed by authors via ResearcherID. The author's conclude there are many initiative devoted to adding clarity to the traditionally unclear world of author identity in scholarly literature, but it is by no means solved.

         This is a really interesting article that really outlines how authorship can be an issue in the modern, fast-paced research environment. I would suggest researchers alongside information organizers to take a look at Rotenberg and Kushmerick's work. I came away from this article with an idea of the types of sources I could use upon completion of published research, or to find researchers on a specific topic. Fortunately, electronic organization of information has helped to partially resolve some issues in author recognition, and hopefully the information specialists of the future can completely eradicate any form of error or misrepresentation in scholarly work.

_________________________________________________________________________

For more information see the full article (citation below)!

Rotenberg, E. & Kushmericka, A. (2011). The author challenge: Identification of self in the scholarly literature. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 49(6):503-20.

Verbal Subject Analysis I: Library Subject Headings

Subject Cataloging versus Indexing

• Both are related to the subject analysis of resources.
• Subject cataloging is a term used for the subject analysis operations in library cataloging. 
• Indexing is a term generally used for the subject analysis operations in various other resource organization contexts, including periodical databases and search engines.

Subject Analysis Jargon

• Documentary unit - depends on type of retrieval tools
• Monograph - in library catalog
• Chapters - i some library catalogs and periodical databases
• Articles - in periodical databases
• Paragraphs - in back of book indexes and search engines
• Web sites - in website directories
• Web pages - in search engines
• Indexable matter - amount of text for each info resource that is subject analyzed
• Exhaustivity - how many subject terms to assign to a surrogate
• Specificity - how specific are the subject terms for a surrogate

Some Subject Analysis Concepts

• Pre-coordinated vs. post-coordinated terms. 
• Collocation by subject
• Computer "matching":
• Indexers > vocab > match < vocab < users
• The computer is getting a little smarter (e.g. misspellings)

Issues that Vocabularies Must Address

• Growth of knowledge over time (i.e. the introduction of new concepts to a domain)
• Terminological changes to existing concepts over time:
• Maintaining new headings (i.e. the introduction of new terms to represent existing concepts in a domain)
• Maintaining new entry terms (i.e. the introduction of new terms to represent existing concepts in a domain) [e.g. Quaddafi, Kaddafi, Gaddafi, etc.]
• Techniques for managing synonymy over time.
• Techniques for managing homonymy over time (i.e. disambiguation)

Library of Congress Subject Headings

• 
  
• Begun in 1898 with Charles Cutter and his plan for a dictionary, rather than a classified, catalog:
• Direct access to subject in alphabetic list
• Easier for end-users to look up subjects
• It is currently in 5 volumes (the "Reds"), and over 245,000 headings (and countless entry terms).

Earlier Version of LCSH Subject Headings

A Later Version of LCSH Subject Headings.
As you can see, the growth of knowledge requires and expanse of entries, and thus the collection has grown from a set of 4 (picutred above) to a set of 6.

Literary Warrant in LCSH

• New headings are generated based on need as indicated by the emergence of new subjects in the published literature that has been selected for library collections. 
• Therefore, the LCSH is NOT a comprehensive subject headings list:
• It represents what the LC collections holds
• HOWEVER, the LC collection holds a LOT. 
• Grows by accretion over time as new headings are added that match what authors are writing about over time.

LCSH Structural Elements

• One-word subject headings (nouns).
• Two-word subject headings (nouns and adjectives):
• normal word order
• inverted word order
• More than 2 word subject headings: Use of conjunctions and prepositional phrases. 
• Parenthetical qualifiers.
• BT, NT, Use, UF, RT, and SA (the latter defined ad "general 'see also; relationships")

LCSH  Features

• Derived from book cataloguing of US Congress.
• Established over a long period, with inconsistencies between subject areas because of major vocabulary management changes introduced in the 1970s.
• Becoming polyhierarchical (i.e. "Fairy Poetry" is a NT of "Poetry" and "Fairies")
• Extensive guidance, including online subscription resources
• American spelling/usage

Hierarchical Relationships (BT and NT)

• Only immediate relationships are listed; user must "ride the rails" to locate desired specificity. 
• Polyhierarchy is used (i.e. multiple broader terms for a subject heading).
• Some BT and NT terms may not be listed in subject heading if they are adjacent alphabetically in list. 

Equivalence Relationships (Use and UF)

• Synonyms: feline heartworm USE Dirofilaria imitis
• Variant spellings: dog USE dogs
• History notes: AIDS UF Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
• Inverted multi-word headings: educational psychology UF psychology, educational

Associate Relationships (RT)

• Specific reference to other subject headings that are related by association. 
• These related subject headings are topics that are associated in ways other than hierarchically. (e.g. Birds and Ornithology (the study of birds)

Subdivisions in LCSH

• Subdivisions qualify (i.e. further specify) the meaning of subject heading in non-hierarchical ways
• Some subdivisions are editorially pre-coordinated with their subject headings.
• Some subdivisions are not  editorially pre-coordinated; rather, they are free floating:
• Free floating subdivisions have rules for their applications, and are connected via these rules. 
• These free floaters were a major improvement to LCSH and were introduced in the 1970s.  
• Headings are always first, followed by subdivisions.

Subdivision Types:

• Topical subdivisions:
• Qualifies meaning of a subject heading according to a specific subtopical aspect.
• Chronological subdivisions:
• Limits a subject heading to a particular time period.
• Geographic subdivisions:
• Indicated by "May Subd Geog" or disallowed by "Not Subd Geog" 
• Couls be inverted: Massachusetts -- History
• Form subdivisions:
• Not topical, rather used to indicate what a work is, e.g. abstracts, dictionaries, handbooks, pictorial workds
• Added at end of subdivision

Subdivision Type Examples

• Editorially pre-coordinated: Those created by LCSH editors for use under a partiular heading:
• EXAMPLES
• Dogs -- Anatomy
• United States -- History -- 1815-1861
• Free-floating: Those that may be used under heading without being established editorially:
• EXAMPLES
• Biochemistry -- Congresses [form subdivision]
• New York (N.Y.) -- Buildings, structures, etc. [topical subdivision]

General See Also Relationships (SA)

• A blanket reference to a group of related headings. 
• EXAMPLE
• Economic history -- "Subdivision economic conditions under names of countries, cities, etc., and under classes of persons and ethnic groups."

Assigning Headings to Works 

• These rules are taken from the Subject Cataloging Manual that is used by all catalogers:
• Assign one or more subject headings that best summarize the content of the work. 
• Assign headings only for topics that compromise at least 20% of the work.
• Sometimes, one heading is sufficient; generally, a maximum of 6 is appropriate, but never more than 10
• Assign headings that are as specific as the topics they cover.

Subject Analysis by Catalogers

• These guidelines are taken from the Subject Cataloging Manual that is used by all catalogers:
• Titles and subtitles are important because they sometimes state in the words of the author or publisher the subject matter of the work.
• If the title is misleading, euphemistic, or cryptic, do not use the title of the work as a guide to the contents of the work.
• If the title is general, but the work is actually on a more specific topci, assign a heading for the specific topic. 

Article Summary for Lecture # 8 - Knowlton

Three Decades Since

Prejudices and Antipathies:

A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings

              The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) have been criticized for containing biased subject headings. Knowlton, in his study, reviews critiques of the LCSH, and performs a study to see the extent of which they have changed since suggested edits have been proposed. 

        Since the first publication in 1909, critics have questioned the choice of terms, the subject structure, and the inconsistency with which subject headings are formulated. However, regardless of the critiques or objections, the LCSH has solidified itself as the primary thesaurus for controlled vocabulary searching in libraries. The first of these critiques was raised in the late 1960s, and critics since contend that certain subject headings (i.e. those identifying groups of people) "perpetuate the exclusionary cultural supremacy of the mainstream patriarchal, Euro-settler culture. 

       Professional LoC catalogers stand by the idea that "subject headings assigned to works in the catalog should be what a particular type of library patron would be most likely to search under - regardless of the notion of universal bibliographic control, to which the LoC is also committed." However, critics main objection lies in the identity of the "average" reader, who has been identified as American/Western European, Christian, white, heterosexual, and male - which does not accurately reflect the melting pot we live in. By using the language/perspective of a particular group of readers, instead of seeking neutral terms, LCSH can make materials hard to find for "minority" users and/or give the impression that certain points of view are normal, which makes others unusual. 

       In 1980, the LoC created a Racism and Sexism in Subject Analysis Subcommittee, which turned in a number of recommendations. Fortunately, the implementations of computerized catalogs in 1986 have made the process of changing headings much simpler, and thus the pace at which biased headings were changed quickened. Sanford Berman is recognized as the pioneer of updated LoC terminology. In his work Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People (P&A), he addressed these perceived biases and proposed alterations/deletions. Of course, there were those who expressed doubt/reservations stating that "the subject catalog is only an auxiliary tool to the much more sophisticated subject bibliographies" or that "the biased language of the headings merely reflects based on literature being cataloged."

       Knowlton examines the influence of Berman, and tries to calculate the changes to the LCSH since the publication of P&A. Berman himself estimates that no more than half of his suggestions have been adopted. The process of examination Knowlton follows is thus:

1. The current LCSH were searched, and any changes that have occurred were noted.
2. The volumes of Cataloging Service Bulletin since 1971 were skimmed to locate the date that changes were made. 

Knowlton found that out of the 225 suggested changes, 88 (39%) have been changed almost exactly as he suggested, an additional 54 (24%) have been changed in ways that partially reflect Berman's suggestion, and 80 (36%) of the items remain unchanged. Knowlton notes that most of those unchanged are subject headings pertaining to the Christian religion. However, the fact that since P&A it seems subject heading bias has been taken into serious consideration my LCSH compilers, and Knowlton says that should be seen as hopeful milestones towards providing equal access to all users.

       Knowlton's article and research are very interesting. If you are interested in minority/inequality studies this is a great article for you. It should also be relevant to any person working within the information organization field.  I'll reiterate a point I've made in several posts - our jobs as information organizers is to get information into the hands of patrons with little effort on their part. If we tailor organization to suit a populus that doesn't reflect our patron, something is wrong. The system should be tailored to help get quality information to the user regardless of orientation, gender, race, or religion. We still have a long way to go, but I'm with Knowlton on the idea that the progress we have seen is indicative on the ability and willingness to make things right, and with that kind of attitude we can do anything.

_________________________________________________________________________________
For more information or to see charts from Knowlton's research see the full article (citation below)!

Knowlton, S.A. (2005). Three decades since prejudices and antipathies: A study of changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40(2):123-45.