From the catalogs of babes











Today I found a book with the LCSH “Multidisciplinary design optimization.”

Now, what I want to know is: what in the world is multidisciplinary design optimization? Does that even mean anything in English? I can’t even parse that.

And, in an overall context: if I can’t understand what that is and what that book is about, what makes anyone think our students will?

Advertisements


{April 9, 2009}   trade shows

So. Trade shows.

Trade shows   (May Subd Geog)  [R S D]
[T391-995]  [B L S D]
Here are entered works on exhibitions or public displays where merchandise of particular industries is shown to customers or persons engaged in the same trade.
UF  Industrial exhibitions
  Technology–Exhibitions
  Trade expositions
  Trade fairs

We get a lot of materials about trade shows. Shows for textiles, fashion, apparel manufacturing, all kinds of good stuff. Lots of directories and calendars and what not. frequently consulted, and all unique in their own way.

Is there really no way to subdivide the LCSH “Trade shows” by industry? I mean, really: how can you specify in the scope notes “merchandise of particular industries” without allowing for any way to indicate those particular industries?

I assume this is akin to the tv/film/theatre costume conundrum, where most libraries would be served just fine by using a combination of multiple headings to describe the material. And once again I am left with the decision whether to staunchly adhere to the regulations put forth by the almighty LC on high, or to buck the rules and do what seems to better benefit patrons, even knowing that it widens the crack in the dam a little more every time?



And while we’re on the subject, is there really no way to narrow down and distinguish between movie, TV, and theatre costume, besides using multiple headings? “Costume” has a UF reference for both “Motion pictures–Costume” and “Theatre–Costume.”

As you can imagine, this might be pretty important to a library serving students of costume design.



{March 6, 2009}   stupid question time

Okay, call me stupid, but is there really no LC subject heading that covers the concept of non-western art? I can find headings for indiviudal movements/regions (i.e., “Art, East Asian”; “Art, Middle Eastern”) but none show any broader terms. When I look up similar books in other library catalogs, they either list each individual movement or they use the generic “Art–History.” “Art” can apparently be subdivided geographically, but I’m not sure how that would work: “Art–Eastern Hemisphere”? And of course, not a single one of the examples in SCM 1250 apply to general works on non-Western art.

I know some of all y’all out there must be more familar with the art headings than I am. Any tips?



{December 22, 2008}   lcsh.info shut down

I just read that the Library of Congress requested lcsh.info pull the plug. I’m pretty much in shock, as I just recently discovered lcsh.info and it has saved my butt quite a few times in the few months that i knew about its existence.

See, my library has a subscription to ClassWeb, which is a paid service from the LOC providing searchable subject headings and classification. Ours expires every year in October. Every year, In October, we send them a payment to renew our subscription. And every year in October, they cut off our access, telling us that our subscription has expired. They are nice enough to cut off our access with no warnings or reminders, so that it always happens that one day I go to log in and BAM!: access denied.

So every year we make numerous phone calls to the Library of Congress, playing lots of phone tag and wasting our time and theirs. After several weeks, when we finally get ahold of a live person at the LOC (and that’s a generous estimate–I won’t tell you how long it took us to purchase the Subject Cataloging Manual–no wonder libraries lack standards and are all over the map; if LOC really wanted to support standardization and use of their heading and classification products, you’d think they’d make them easier to get and use), after waiting for weeks to talk to someone, they tell us, yes, we did pay (which we obviously already knew) and that it will take a few weeks to reinstate our service. (And in this day and age, I’m agog at any web subscription that takes 2 weeks to reinstate.)

Over the course of the past several months, I’ve been using lcsh.info to do my work. We don’t have hard print copies of LCSH anymore (who does? and why would they use them even if they did?). I could use the LOC Authorities, which I sometimes do, but I find their search function cumbersome, with high recall yet low precision retrieval. While I do like that LOC recently added subject heading strings to its authorities search, it does also open up the possibility of retuning unauthorized entries, with which I have had problems in the past, especially since unauthorized headings have been one of the biggest problems in our local catalog and something i have been working very hard to correct. In contrast, lcsh.info was clean, with an easy-to-use search function and a nice retrieval display in order of relevance. To me it wasn’t even about the experimental techniques, though I grant I was interested in those as well, though I never had much time to explore them before the December 18 shut down. It was a simple case of access and availability–lcsh.info made subject headings available to my library and allowed me to accomplish my job when a paid service from LOC could not.

I have never understood LOC’s tight grasp on LCSH. I do understand and respect that LCSH wasn’t originally designed for such widespread use–it was designed to catalog the LOC collection, not for every American library everywhere. While I often rail againt the terminology and diction of LCSH, its outdated (and sometimes offensive and prejudicial) terms, and its demonstrated user-unfriendliness, I do respect that it was never intended to butt up against sue situations where that would be a problem. LCSH is user-unfriendly because the people who currently use it never should have become its users. But somehow or another we are it’s users–librarians and patrons a like–and if you want us to keep using your system, we have to have a motivating reason. For years it’s been nothing but inertia: we use it because we always have used it and we’ve gotten so many materials and so deeply entrenched in it that it’s easier to keep rolling along with it than to change it. But someone needs to stop this rolling rock, because we passed the library turnpike a long way back. LCSH has never served my library’s users well. It certainly handles fashion poorly, and I’ve been looking for a specialized vocabulary to use instead and not found anything yet.* While we are a special case, I argue that public and academic libraries as well need to leave LCSH behind. Everyone knows the “Cookery” example by now–how many ridiculous, outdated subject headings do we need to see before we decide it’s time for a change? how many patrons need to walk away confused, or have their catalog searches yield zero results because they didn’t know to search for “Caffeine habit” rather than “Caffeine addiction” (note the lack of UF).

I have long held that if you want someone to use your product, whatever that product may be, it should be easy to use and easy to access, as well as easy on your wallet to purchase. I hate craft shows that charge an entrance fee–it find it makes purchasing goods more difficult when I have to pay to get in the door. I hate buying from websites where I can’t figure out how to use the shopping cart–and sometimes I end up being physically unable to purchase, if I can’t make the damn thing work. If I buy a toaster and can’t understand the instructions, it’s not going to get used. These things all go for LCSH or any cataloging standards (MARC, AACR, etc.), in my opinion: if you want people to use your system in their libraries, it should be freely accessible and easy to use. The only thing  big organizations like OCLC and LOC have going for them right now is inertia. And while that will carry you far, eventually it will run out.**

 

*I had planned on writing my thesis on this, but ended up doing an electronic portfolio instead. I’m still interested in the project and refuse to let it go.

**Unless you’re in a vacuum, which I think we’ve already established they are not.



et cetera