Lyo,
There is no such "Rule of 1" in LC subject heading practices of recent
years. What you may be observing is the "rule of specificity" which has
actually been a principle of LCSH application for decades. (Even the "rule
of 3," when it was a formal guideline, was just that -- a guideline, rather
than a hard-and-fast rule.)
The principle of *specificity* calls for selecting or composing a
subject heading which most closely represents the main topic of the work.
If the concept conveyed by the single heading is *coextensive* with the
subject content of the work, then that one subject heading is all that is
needed. Often this is not the case, and two or more subject headings are
necessary. Indeed, LC has had another guideline which states that, if a
certain subject consumes at least 20% of the work's intellectual content,
then you are allowed to add a subject heading for it. (I have occasionally
seen LC-created records with as many as 7 or 8 subject headings, but this is
indeed unusual.) Because of this principle of specificity, you will not
find "extra" headings assigned which are related to, narrower or broader
than the specific heading. The LC see-also cross-references are supposed to
take care of these relationships, guiding the user to the specific
expression of her topic.
Catalogers cannot index the work. That is what the back-of-the-book
index does. Remember that the *classification* number which the cataloger
assigns is a complementary method of providing subject access. The catalog
user identifies one or more class numbers on her topic, and then goes to the
shelf where she can peruse the more detailed tables-of-contents and indexes
of works in the same subject area. This process has been called the
"systematic serendipity" research method by Thomas Mann, a reference
librarian at LC who claims that he loves catalogers.
And, contrary to what you say about Contents notes, they are
actually on the increase! Many many more libraries have been including them
now, for works produced under editorial direction, but consisting of
articles or lectures of differing scope and by different authors. These
notes are *keyword* indexed, and, ironically, they often create some noise
when users are really looking for a sinlgle whole work on a subject rather
than just a little chapter in a compilation of essays.
Regarding the foreign language problem, well, you can see how the
classification approach is helpful there, can't you? Guidelines have been
written for multi-lingual thesauri, and, yes, it would be nice if someday
our systems would automatically translate our search terms into their
equivalent French, German, (etc.) keywords. Non-roman alphabets will
present a challenge. But I digress...
Despite the fact that I seem to be disagreeing with your comments -->
I must say it is very refreshing to hear from a public services librarian
who does appreciate the value of services which catalogers provide. So
often we hear the demand for More, Cheaper, Faster! Lyo reminds us that we
must have quality too, because of its impact on information access, which
is, after all, what we are all about.
Alva
===================================
>I wasn't too happy with the Rule of 3 (maximum number of subject headings
>assigned to a catalog record), but this new Rule of 1 is even more
>bothersome. In the past few years, the Library of Congress seems to have
>been assigning only one subject heading to a record in efforts to streamline
>the cataloging process.
>
>Sometimes one subject heading is not enough!
>
>Sometimes it's not the best one. And even if it is, overbroad. Or
>sometimes, not the right subject heading.
>
>I am particularly concerned about foreign, comparative and international law
>works. When you have works in foreign languages or on topics that people
>generally are not familiar with, subject headings provide additional access
>points that help you identify the work.
>
>Keyword searching, while it has been very useful to have via online catalogs,
>still needs to be supplemented by subject heading searches. And limiting the
>subjects can lead to overbreadth (too many books under one general subject)
>or reduce the ability of the patron to quickly identify books on a topic they
>are interested. If it's one subject heading and that subject heading is not
>the best one, or an incorrect one, access to information about a book
>is not optimized. And some of these FCIL books are expensive. You
>pay a lot of money for a book, and then people have trouble finding it
>in the online catalog...
>
>I am afraid we are getting more access to less information (or less useful
>information) via the online catalog nowadays.
>
>I would wish for more attention to be spent or exceptions to be made
>to the Rule of 1 rule for specialized works of law, such as foreign,
>comparative, and international legal materials, to make it easier for
>people to access them. Making them a priority in cataloging would be
>nice also...:-)
>
>We're handling this Rule of 1 rule locally by adding subject headings
>where necessary, but it would be much easier if these subject headings
>were already in the cataloging record.
>
>And what about contents notes - are they disappearing also?
>
>End rant.
>
>Thanks for listening...:-) Have a nice weekend, everyone!
>Lyo.
>----------------------
> Lyonette Louis-Jacques
> Foreign and International Law Librarian and Lecturer in Law
> University of Chicago Law School, D'Angelo Law Library
> E-mail: llou@midway.uchicago.edu; Phone: 1-773-702-9612; Fax: 1-773-702-2889
>******************************************************************************
> Data is not Information.
> Information is not Knowledge.
> Knowledge is not Wisdom.
> (sighted .sig)
>
>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Alva T. Stone, Head of Cataloging
Florida State University Law Library
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1043 USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:32 PST