This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
public:nnels:cataloguing:start:subjectheadings [2018/11/25 01:10] robert.macgregor |
public:nnels:cataloguing:start:subjectheadings [2024/05/09 05:04] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ===== Discussion on Standardizing Subject Headings ===== | ||
- | This is a place to discuss ways of standardizing the subject headings we apply to materials, or even whether it is worth it to do so. | ||
- | |||
- | As it stands we have been using the FAST subject terms that have been applied in various places and compiled through OCLC. These subject headings can at times be oddly specific. | ||
- | |||
- | That is not to say it is a poor system, just that there could be room for improvement if we can put together some kind of system or taxonomy that can be applied economically. | ||
- | |||
- | I would say that any scheme needs to: | ||
- | |||
- | * Describe items accurately without being too narrow/ | ||
- | * Take into account the level of accuracy required by the patron-base | ||
- | * Be small enough to reasonably manage | ||
- | * Be intuitive enough that we don't need to look terms up all the time | ||
- | * Be economical enough that the time spent working on it isn't greater than the time it saves | ||
- | * Not just repeat the information found in the genre terms | ||
- | |||
- | Systems to look at using or cannibalizing: | ||
- | |||
- | ^ ^ Pros ^ Cons ^ | ||
- | ^ LOC | Very accurate | ||
- | |::: | Most widely used | Unintuitive for average user | | ||
- | |::: | | Will need to be copied from other sources | ||
- | ^ FAST | More easily readable than LOC | A lot of terms - unmanageable | ||
- | |::: | Can be poached from OCLC | Some items are poorly described in OCLC | | ||
- | |::: | | Variations in similar items | | ||
- | ^ BISAC | Intuitive for patrons | ||
- | |::: | Small enough to be manageable | Similar to genre terms with a bit more depth | | ||
- | |::: | Works well for bulk-purchases | Probably won't be able to copy catalogue | ||
- | ^ CSH | Accurate for Canadian context | Not sure if easy to use for patrons | | ||
- | |::: | | Maybe too limited for the collection | | ||
- | ^ X̱wi7x̱wa Classification and Names | Nice to have for collections related to indigenous material | Has to be used in conjunction with other subject headings | | ||
- | |::: | | Likely require more work to implement | | ||
- | ^ THEMA | | | | ||
- | |::: | | | | ||
- | ^ Sears | | | | ||
- | |::: | | | | ||
- | |||
- | Links to each: | ||
- | |||
- | [[http:// | ||
- | |||
- | [[https:// | ||
- | |||
- | [[https:// | ||
- | |||
- | [[https:// | ||
- | |||
- | [[http:// | ||
- | |||
- | [[https:// | ||
- | |||
- | Sears List of Subject Headings | ||
- | |||
- | At a glance I like BISAC because it's small and simple. | ||
- | |||
- | _____ | ||
- | I'm personally really not a fan of using the FAST headings... because sometimes they work great but sometimes they' | ||
- | |||
- | I also like BISAC, which is easy to navigate and use. CSH doesn' | ||
- | |||
- | Just went through THEMA - I like how it handles Non-Fiction (although it's still pretty unwieldy), however fiction is the sticking point again. | ||
- | |||
- | ===== Implementation questions ===== | ||
- | * NNELS relies on other library, publisher and distributor records for its metadata. The most common subject headings used in these records are probably LOC (from libraries) and BISAC (from publishers). If another subject classification were to be used, NNELS would need to implement a crosswalk/ | ||
- | * it might be easiest to utilize a subset of LOC subject headings for NNELS? we would map LOC subject headings to a smaller subset (similar to what we did for our genre taxonomy) | ||
- | * we could additionally develop a BISAC to LOC (for NNELS) crosswalk? | ||
- | * we could also map LOC to BISAC. Is there a crosswalk that already exists? | ||
- | |||
- | ............................. | ||
- | |||
- | If we go with a simplified version of LOC we could copy catalogue from libraries easily enough. | ||
- | |||
- | I think regardless, it might be worthwhile putting one BISAC heading in. BISAC seems to use pretty natural language, and I assume the keyword searches might have an easy time hitting on one of the parts of a BISAC heading. |