I did spend time looking over the RDA Element Analysis for its use of "literal" and "non-literal." (I know that to some of you this will seem like nit-picking, but trust me that in the end it will matter.) Let me start by giving my definition of "literal" and "non-literal":
literal: an alphanumeric string representing a value.
example: "Moby Dick, or The whale"
example: "Herman Melville"
example: "ISBN:123456789x"
non-literal: a surrogate for the value itself.
example: uri:lccn: n 79006936 [identifies the LC name authorities record for Person Herman Melville]
example: http://authoritylists.info/uri/RDACarr/1052 [identifies RDA carrier type "volume"]
In programming, non-literals are those data elements that you give a name to. This means that in programming you are mainly working with non-literals:
mainTitle = 245ab
In data records, the values are often literals:
dc:title = "Moby Dick"
When we think about RDA and the literal/non-literal difference, we have some choices. RDA could treat every value as a literal, and let another standard, the data standard, define some as non-literals. This would provide for the maximum flexibility for implementing RDA.
Another possibility is that RDA could define some elements, such as the vocabulary lists included in RDA, as non-literals. These are, indeed, defined as non-literals in the RDA Element Analysis. This would mean that any use of RDA would need to define vocabularies for those data elements, and would have to assign those vocabularies and their entries with identifiers.
There are data elements that might be a literal in one implementation, and a non-literal in another. Author names are an example of this. Today we actually embed the author name as a literal in our MARC records; in the future we could use an identifier to link to an author record, as shown in the example above. Whether or not something is a literal is often a matter of implementation.
There are some data elements, or pieces of information that we think of as single data elements, that could be a combination of a literal and a non-literal. We already have this in the MARC record in the date element in the 008 field. The date itself is a literal ("1984"); it's just a string of numbers. Included with the date is a code that tells you what kind of date it is (single, range, copyright date). The same could be true of the extent statement: "345 p." could consist of a literal ("345") and a code for the unit (pages or leaves or volumes, etc.).
There are data elements that are hard to think of as a non-literal, and in fact they may never be one. Titles, explanatory notes, values like numbers of pages or dates -- all of these are likely to be simple text values in a data record.
Conclusion
RDA, as a set of cataloging rules, should not pre-determine whether elements are transcribed as literals or whether they are represented with surrogates for the values.
A step related to RDA in which RDA is defined as data elements that can be encoded for processing should allow literals for all data elements, but should be defined in such a way that non-literals could be used for any data element.
Another step, that encodes RDA as the library world's bibliographic record, should define non-literals for all vocabulary lists, and, where possible, for all units of measure or data element attributes (such as the type of publication date). It should also define optional non-literals for all authority-controlled elements. This would allow us to move increasingly in the direction of using non-literals.
Of course, our data elements themselves are (or should be) defined in such a way that they are identified with URIs, and therefore are non-literal values. This should be an obvious step in moving our data in the direction of the semantic web.
OK, I've stuck my neck out here -- all comments welcome!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Definitions in RDA Scope
Originally posted to the RDA list.
The RDA scope document defines some basic concepts that presumably will be used throughout RDA. Some of these concepts it takes from the Dublin Core Abstract Model. In particular, it uses "literal value surrogate" and "non-literal value surrogate." These are defined in footnotes of the scope document as:
The term literal value surrogate is used as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model: “a value surrogate for a literal value, made up of exactly one value string (a literal that encodes the value)”.
The term non-literal value surrogate is used as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model: “a value surrogate for a non-literal value, made up of a property URI (a URI that identifies a property), zero or one value URI (a URI that identifies the non-literal value associated with the property), zero or one vocabulary encoding scheme URI (a URI that identifies the vocabulary encoding scheme of which the value is a member), zero or more value strings (literals that represent the value)”.
I found a more concise definition of this in a PPT by Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig:
- a resource which is a non-literal value is represented by a proxy
- a resource which is a literal value is represented as literal
In the above, "literal" means a text string. So "Melville, Herman" is a literal, while "http://www.loc.gov/names/#n_79006936" is a non-literal proxy (because it points to the authority record, which is where the actual value is held).
The scope document then states:
- A label is represented by a literal value surrogate.
- A quantity is represented by a non-literal value surrogate
- A quality is represented by a non-literal value surrogate.
- A type is represented by a non-literal value surrogate
- A role is represented by a non-literal value surrogate.
However, in the element analysis in the scope document, it shows that quantities can be represented identically to labels (and I suspect that all other data types can as well). So that document has (and here there is a diagram that I cannot reproduce in email):
label
[resourceURIref] -> rda:title_proper -> [plain value string]
quantity
[resourceURIref] -> rda:extent -> [typed value string]^^[syntax encoding scheme]
- or -
[resourceURIref] -> rda:non_linear_scale -> [plain value string]
Given that the label example and the second example under quantity are structurally the same, I don't see how one can be a literal and one a non-literal.
I see two possibilities here. One is that all of the above has no real effect on the development of RDA, and therefore any errors in interpretation of the DCMI model can be ignored. The other is that the misunderstanding (which I think it is, but wait to be proven wrong) is significant, and therefore needs to be corrected as part of the development of RDA.
My gut feeling is that it is the former -- I don't see references to these definitions in the RDA text itself, and all values are treated as simple value strings. For example, dates are just text:
Record the date of the expression by giving the year or years alone.
And quantities also seem to be just text strings as well:
Thus, at least as far as the RDA text is concerned, there are only literal values.
If this is not the case, would some please present the argument for a different understanding. Thank you.
The RDA scope document defines some basic concepts that presumably will be used throughout RDA. Some of these concepts it takes from the Dublin Core Abstract Model. In particular, it uses "literal value surrogate" and "non-literal value surrogate." These are defined in footnotes of the scope document as:
The term literal value surrogate is used as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model: “a value surrogate for a literal value, made up of exactly one value string (a literal that encodes the value)”.
The term non-literal value surrogate is used as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model: “a value surrogate for a non-literal value, made up of a property URI (a URI that identifies a property), zero or one value URI (a URI that identifies the non-literal value associated with the property), zero or one vocabulary encoding scheme URI (a URI that identifies the vocabulary encoding scheme of which the value is a member), zero or more value strings (literals that represent the value)”.
I found a more concise definition of this in a PPT by Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig:
- a resource which is a non-literal value is represented by a proxy
- a resource which is a literal value is represented as literal
In the above, "literal" means a text string. So "Melville, Herman" is a literal, while "http://www.loc.gov/names/#n_79006936" is a non-literal proxy (because it points to the authority record, which is where the actual value is held).
The scope document then states:
- A label is represented by a literal value surrogate.
- A quantity is represented by a non-literal value surrogate
- A quality is represented by a non-literal value surrogate.
- A type is represented by a non-literal value surrogate
- A role is represented by a non-literal value surrogate.
However, in the element analysis in the scope document, it shows that quantities can be represented identically to labels (and I suspect that all other data types can as well). So that document has (and here there is a diagram that I cannot reproduce in email):
label
[resourceURIref] -> rda:title_proper -> [plain value string]
quantity
[resourceURIref] -> rda:extent -> [typed value string]^^[syntax encoding scheme]
- or -
[resourceURIref] -> rda:non_linear_scale -> [plain value string]
Given that the label example and the second example under quantity are structurally the same, I don't see how one can be a literal and one a non-literal.
I see two possibilities here. One is that all of the above has no real effect on the development of RDA, and therefore any errors in interpretation of the DCMI model can be ignored. The other is that the misunderstanding (which I think it is, but wait to be proven wrong) is significant, and therefore needs to be corrected as part of the development of RDA.
My gut feeling is that it is the former -- I don't see references to these definitions in the RDA text itself, and all values are treated as simple value strings. For example, dates are just text:
Record the date of the expression by giving the year or years alone.
1940 (p. 6-47 5rda_sec2349.pdf)
And quantities also seem to be just text strings as well:
46 slides
12 cm (from 5rda-parta-ch3rev.pdf)
Thus, at least as far as the RDA text is concerned, there are only literal values.
If this is not the case, would some please present the argument for a different understanding. Thank you.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Interpretations of FRBR Classes
Because it makes use of an entity-relationship model, FRBR consists of two primary concepts: things and relationships. (I often think of them as nouns and verbs.) In the "things" category, FRBR defines 10, which it calls entities. They are: Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item, Person, Corporate Body, Concept, Object, Event, Place.
This is an admirably short list of basic building blocks for bibliographic data. The question is: is it enough? Can we really express our bibliographic data with just these basic concepts? The answer is: probably not. Although we should take a lesson from FRBR and try to keep our set of basic entities small, while allowing for extension of them to express more complex concepts.
As an exercise, I took two well-known attempts to model FRBR using formal definitions. One is the FRBR in RDF, the other is FRBRoo. I also took the RDF entries that Martha Yee created for her cataloging rules and added those to the comparison although it is important to note that Yee's set of RDF statements is intended to go beyond FRBR since it is an expression of cataloging rules, not just the FRBR model.
In each of these three efforts, the FRBR entities are recorded as classes, and the FRBR relationships are recorded as properties. This is in keeping with the definitions in the RDF schema. What is interesting is the number of classes that are defined:
FRBR in RDF adds only three classes. Two of these (Endeavor and ResponsibleEntity) are supersets of FRBR classes. Endeavor is a generalization that can be related to a work, expression, or manifestation. Similarly, ResponsibleEntity is a more general term that can relate to either a corporate body or a person. Both of these seem fairly sensible, allowing you to refer to the intellectual content or some actor without having to specify more information. It's like being able to say "it" without having to saying exactly to what you are referring.
The third class that is added is Subject. As a matter of fact, all three of these include some instance of subjects as classes in their schemas. FRBR clearly treats subject as a relationship. (And I would like to understand why these three interpreted subject as a class -- so post if you have ideas/knowledge on that, please.)
FRBRoo
FRBRoo is a very interesting interpretation of FRBR. As they state in the document, attempting to re-define FRBR using object-oriented rules rather than entity-relationship rules is a way to test the underlying concepts in FRBR. They also tackle the elements that in FRBR that are called "attributes." (Aside: The FRBR attributes are a bit odd, IMO. They seem to be all over the place and there is no explanation of how they were determined or any way to give them some organization. I don't think they actually fit the definition of attributes in E-R, which seem instead to be on the order of identifiers). The folks working on FRBRoo decided to treat the attributes as properties, that is, relationships between the classes.
FRBRoo defines 23 primary classes with 18 subclasses. They address the issue of complex items, such as articles within serials or collections of essays, by creating classes for aggregate and serial works. Some of the classes seem to be what I would normally understand as genres. As an example, there is a class Performance Plan that is described as:
Yee Schema
Martha Yee's set of classes (23 of them, but not the same 23 as FRBRoo) includes Genre/Form as a class. Genre/form seems to be more of an attribute about a work rather than something that has "thingness" in itself. It's hard to imagine how you can have genre/form without it relating to a work. (As opposed to: you can have a person or a corporate body that are things in and of themselves -- that have specific, unique identities.)
It has some classes that might be considered sub-classes. For examples, Place as geographical area and Place as jurisdictional corporate body would seem to be sub-classes of Place, although Yee does not include Place itself in her schema. I'm less clear about classes such as Corporate Subdivision, which has a part/whole relationship with Corporate Body, not a sub-class relationship. (Sub-class would be an "is a type of" relationship, and corporate subdivision is not a type of corporate body, it's a part of a corporate body.) Ditto the subject-related terms: Subject, Subject subdivision, Subject chronological subdivision, Subject form subdivision, Subject geographical subdivision, Subject topical subdivision. In FRBR, the subject is a relationship with the work. These look to me to be relationships with the subject heading, although there is no class for subject headings (unless that is what is meant by the class Subject, but I don't think it would be a good idea to equate subject with subject heading because it makes it impossible to include classifications as subjects or keywords as subjects).
What's the upshot? Well, it would take a good sit-down with all involved to hash out the differences, to understand what each group or person was thinking, and to see if we can formulate a theory of how one extends FRBR to meet ones needs. If a number of people turn out to have the same needs, then it may be that the FRBR model itself needs to take in those ideas. The only way to work this out is to keep modeling and sharing. So I thank the three featured here for the extensive work that they have done in this area.
This is an admirably short list of basic building blocks for bibliographic data. The question is: is it enough? Can we really express our bibliographic data with just these basic concepts? The answer is: probably not. Although we should take a lesson from FRBR and try to keep our set of basic entities small, while allowing for extension of them to express more complex concepts.
As an exercise, I took two well-known attempts to model FRBR using formal definitions. One is the FRBR in RDF, the other is FRBRoo. I also took the RDF entries that Martha Yee created for her cataloging rules and added those to the comparison although it is important to note that Yee's set of RDF statements is intended to go beyond FRBR since it is an expression of cataloging rules, not just the FRBR model.
In each of these three efforts, the FRBR entities are recorded as classes, and the FRBR relationships are recorded as properties. This is in keeping with the definitions in the RDF schema. What is interesting is the number of classes that are defined:
- FRBR in RDF: 13 classes
- FRBRoo: 23 classes, 18 sub-classes, 41 total
- Yee's schema: 23 classes
- FRBRoo does not include Manifestation, but instead has Manifestation product type and Manifestation singleton
- Yee's substitutes Event as subject for the FRBR class Event and substitutes Place as geographic area and Place as Jurisdictional Corporate Body for the FRBR Place
FRBR in RDF adds only three classes. Two of these (Endeavor and ResponsibleEntity) are supersets of FRBR classes. Endeavor is a generalization that can be related to a work, expression, or manifestation. Similarly, ResponsibleEntity is a more general term that can relate to either a corporate body or a person. Both of these seem fairly sensible, allowing you to refer to the intellectual content or some actor without having to specify more information. It's like being able to say "it" without having to saying exactly to what you are referring.
The third class that is added is Subject. As a matter of fact, all three of these include some instance of subjects as classes in their schemas. FRBR clearly treats subject as a relationship. (And I would like to understand why these three interpreted subject as a class -- so post if you have ideas/knowledge on that, please.)
FRBRoo
FRBRoo is a very interesting interpretation of FRBR. As they state in the document, attempting to re-define FRBR using object-oriented rules rather than entity-relationship rules is a way to test the underlying concepts in FRBR. They also tackle the elements that in FRBR that are called "attributes." (Aside: The FRBR attributes are a bit odd, IMO. They seem to be all over the place and there is no explanation of how they were determined or any way to give them some organization. I don't think they actually fit the definition of attributes in E-R, which seem instead to be on the order of identifiers). The folks working on FRBRoo decided to treat the attributes as properties, that is, relationships between the classes.
FRBRoo defines 23 primary classes with 18 subclasses. They address the issue of complex items, such as articles within serials or collections of essays, by creating classes for aggregate and serial works. Some of the classes seem to be what I would normally understand as genres. As an example, there is a class Performance Plan that is described as:
This class comprises sets of directions to which individual performances of theatrical, choreographic, or musical works and their combinations should conform.Another example of a new class is Publication Event. This is an action that is part of the work flow of publication, such as
Establishing in 1972 the layout, features, and prototype for the publication of “The complete poems of Stephen Crane, edited with an introduction by Joseph Katz” (ISBN “0-8014-9130-4”), which served for a second print run in 1978.Being an action, I would tend to express this as a property (a verb). So the layout, features, etc. could be subclasses of a manifestation, there would be an actor (a noun, or a class, probably the publishing house, or more specifically a book designer), and a time. The verb (or property) could be "designed" "typeset" "printed" etc. This makes me wonder about the FRBR class Event as a noun, but I think I could buy into a concept of named events ("WWII" "Election day 2008" "Beatles first appearance on Ed Sullivan"). Interestingly, it does appear that all of these are events as subjects, as Event is defined in FRBR; the FRBRoo event does not appear to have this noun-ish characteristic.
Yee Schema
Martha Yee's set of classes (23 of them, but not the same 23 as FRBRoo) includes Genre/Form as a class. Genre/form seems to be more of an attribute about a work rather than something that has "thingness" in itself. It's hard to imagine how you can have genre/form without it relating to a work. (As opposed to: you can have a person or a corporate body that are things in and of themselves -- that have specific, unique identities.)
It has some classes that might be considered sub-classes. For examples, Place as geographical area and Place as jurisdictional corporate body would seem to be sub-classes of Place, although Yee does not include Place itself in her schema. I'm less clear about classes such as Corporate Subdivision, which has a part/whole relationship with Corporate Body, not a sub-class relationship. (Sub-class would be an "is a type of" relationship, and corporate subdivision is not a type of corporate body, it's a part of a corporate body.) Ditto the subject-related terms: Subject, Subject subdivision, Subject chronological subdivision, Subject form subdivision, Subject geographical subdivision, Subject topical subdivision. In FRBR, the subject is a relationship with the work. These look to me to be relationships with the subject heading, although there is no class for subject headings (unless that is what is meant by the class Subject, but I don't think it would be a good idea to equate subject with subject heading because it makes it impossible to include classifications as subjects or keywords as subjects).
What's the upshot? Well, it would take a good sit-down with all involved to hash out the differences, to understand what each group or person was thinking, and to see if we can formulate a theory of how one extends FRBR to meet ones needs. If a number of people turn out to have the same needs, then it may be that the FRBR model itself needs to take in those ideas. The only way to work this out is to keep modeling and sharing. So I thank the three featured here for the extensive work that they have done in this area.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Titles in Retail and Publisher Data
There's been talk and action lately around libraries making use of data provided by publishers or retailers. What little experience I have in this area leads me to understand that we need to do some serious studies of the bibliographic metadata that is created in situations outside of libraries. What I present here is a single bit of work, not a study, and the numbers should be considered valid only for this particular set of data. However, I think that this shows the value that real studies could produce in terms of understanding our relative approaches to metadata.
For those who prefer not to read further, let me give you my conclusions here:
1. Libraries focus on the title as it is given on the title page. Others (publishers, retailers) are more interested in the cover title, both in its promotional role and as that which the buyer and retailer see when handling the product and creating order on shelves.
2.While online bookstores rely heavily on the ISBN to identify the item, and therefore are motivated to correct the ISBN if needed, the Library of Congress records in this study appear to be less often updated to correct an ISBN. (Therefore, it would be interesting to do this comparison with OCLC records to see if they get corrected more frequently than LoC.)
3. Retailers and publishers use the form of the author's name that is on the book itself and do not concern themselves with the unique identification of authors. Only libraries use the authoritative name form, which may not match up to the form used by others.
4. Publishers and libraries have different data points for number of pages, with libraries using the numbered pages and publishers focusing on the total number of sheets.
I should also mention that everyone except libraries seems to use title case for titles. Does anyone know the logic behind the library decision not to use title case?
The Comparison
- 250,000 LC MARC records compared to Amazon online data, matching on ISBN, then comparing titles
The Numbers
- 71,000 records matched on ISBN
- of those, 67,000 also matched on title, or on partial title (left-anchored)
Reasons for Non-matches
Of those that didn't match, the reason was (based on an unscientific sample, so the percentages are just a rough guide):
1. The Amazon entry includes what libraries consider to be the series title as part of the title. These are often those "publisher series" that would be placed in a MARC 490. They generally appear prominently on the cover of the book, are presented with the title on the cover, and are carried in the cover design. Retailers also seem to add key information that would appear on the cover, such as the fact that the item includes a CD-ROM.
Amazon: State Shapes: Texas
MARC: Texas (series: State Shapes)
(Note, I've gotten a better look at ONIX data and it turns out that in many cases the series is coded as the title, and the book title is coded as the subtitle. So in the example above, the data that Amazon received would have had "State Shapes" as the title and "Texas" as the subtitle.)
Amazon: How to Prepare for the GMAT with CD-ROM
MARC: How to prepare for the graduate management admission test
(In this case there are two versions of the book, one with, one without the CD. MARC has the same title for both)
Number: ~45%
2. Minor differences in wording or spelling errors. These are often on Amazon titles, perhaps those that have been entered in by bookstores or small retailers that sell through Amazon. There are also some obvious differences in practice which may or may not be consistent in the retailer data.
Amazon: Literature of Memory
MARC: Literatures of memory
Amazon: One Eye Laughing, the Other Eye Weeping
MARC: One eye laughing, the other weeping
Amazon: Java(TM) Server and Servlets
MARC: Java server and servlets
Number: ~27%
3. The title in Amazon includes the name of the author; the MARC record separates these into author and title. (Amazon also includes the author name in the author field.) There are also times when this is reversed (eg MARC includes the author name in the title, Amazon does not):
Amazon: John Thelwall's the Peripatetic
MARC: The peripatetic
Amazon: BBC Walking with Dinosaurs
MARC: Walking with dinosaurs
Amazon: Southern Christmas
MARC: Emyl Jenkin's southern Christmas
Number: ~10%
4. Titles so entirely different that it appears to be a wrong ISBN. Often it is an ISBN from another book by the same publisher, possibly a mistaken re-use. Of these, the entries on Amazon appear to be correct, while those in LC records often contain an ISBN that retrieves more than one item from that publisher. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn the the ISBN received by the CIP program is often not the actual final ISBN. When the book then arrives at LoC, it may be hard to determine that or why the ISBN has changed.
Amazon: Harriet Tubman
MARC: Paul Robeson
Number: ~8%
5. There are differences in the treatment of numbers and abbreviations that appear in titles. In some cases, the title on Amazon has been abbreviated beyond what appears on the book, probably by a bookseller saving keystrokes. It's also my guess that in some Amazon entries the abbreviation or number is spelled out to influence retrieval.
Amazon: Ten Best Teaching Practices
MARC: 10 best teaching practices
Amazon: God, Doctor Buzzard, and the Bolito Man
MARC: God, Dr. Buzzard, and the Bolito Man
Number: ~6%
6. Mysterious, undiagnosed, or possible errors in the comparison algorithm. I'll work more on these.
Amazon: Decisive Treatise and Epistle Dedicatory
MARC: The book of the decisive treatise determining the connection between the law and wisdom
Number: ~14%
Link to the Data
This link takes you to a page with comparisons that link to the MARC record held at the Internet Archive and to the Amazon page for the book. You can see these and other differences by looking at the two sets of data. Again, note that this was a quick comparison and there are some errors in the comparison methodology that we are already aware of.
Some Other Observed Differences
Although not included in this group (which only compares titles) there are other differences that I have observed in ONIX data but that I haven't attempted to measure.
7. Authors. An obvious area of difference is that publisher and retailer data does not use the library name authorities form of the name ("Smith, John, 1837-"). Publishers tend to include a display form of the name in their data ("John Smith") and some of them also include the inverted form ("Smith, John"), but there is no concept of unique identification of authors across time and between different publishers. Talking with publisher representatives, I also have learned that the form of the author's name that will be used on the printed book and in publicity may be designated in the contract between the author and the publisher. This does not mean that publishers cannot include a version of the name as found in the LC name authorities file. However, it is likely that there will be multiple forms of the name in non-library data, rather than the single form found in library records.
8. Pagination. I was looking at pagination as part of a de-duping algorithm because it served us well when de-duping within library data as a way to distinguish different editions. This will not be the case between library and publisher data, at least not with the data that I have seen. Publishers have an entirely different measure of pages, and it is (logically) the actual number of pages in the physical book. This is clearly a matter of cost to them, and also a key piece of data about the manufacture of the book. Libraries, instead, record the printed page numbers. This latter is immediately visible to the cataloger, while the publisher count would mean having to actually hand count the pages in the book. In this case, libraries and publishers are each working with the information that is easily found at hand, but the results differ considerably.
For those who prefer not to read further, let me give you my conclusions here:
1. Libraries focus on the title as it is given on the title page. Others (publishers, retailers) are more interested in the cover title, both in its promotional role and as that which the buyer and retailer see when handling the product and creating order on shelves.
2.While online bookstores rely heavily on the ISBN to identify the item, and therefore are motivated to correct the ISBN if needed, the Library of Congress records in this study appear to be less often updated to correct an ISBN. (Therefore, it would be interesting to do this comparison with OCLC records to see if they get corrected more frequently than LoC.)
3. Retailers and publishers use the form of the author's name that is on the book itself and do not concern themselves with the unique identification of authors. Only libraries use the authoritative name form, which may not match up to the form used by others.
4. Publishers and libraries have different data points for number of pages, with libraries using the numbered pages and publishers focusing on the total number of sheets.
I should also mention that everyone except libraries seems to use title case for titles. Does anyone know the logic behind the library decision not to use title case?
The Comparison
- 250,000 LC MARC records compared to Amazon online data, matching on ISBN, then comparing titles
The Numbers
- 71,000 records matched on ISBN
- of those, 67,000 also matched on title, or on partial title (left-anchored)
Reasons for Non-matches
Of those that didn't match, the reason was (based on an unscientific sample, so the percentages are just a rough guide):
1. The Amazon entry includes what libraries consider to be the series title as part of the title. These are often those "publisher series" that would be placed in a MARC 490. They generally appear prominently on the cover of the book, are presented with the title on the cover, and are carried in the cover design. Retailers also seem to add key information that would appear on the cover, such as the fact that the item includes a CD-ROM.
Amazon: State Shapes: Texas
MARC: Texas (series: State Shapes)
(Note, I've gotten a better look at ONIX data and it turns out that in many cases the series is coded as the title, and the book title is coded as the subtitle. So in the example above, the data that Amazon received would have had "State Shapes" as the title and "Texas" as the subtitle.)
Amazon: How to Prepare for the GMAT with CD-ROM
MARC: How to prepare for the graduate management admission test
(In this case there are two versions of the book, one with, one without the CD. MARC has the same title for both)
Number: ~45%
2. Minor differences in wording or spelling errors. These are often on Amazon titles, perhaps those that have been entered in by bookstores or small retailers that sell through Amazon. There are also some obvious differences in practice which may or may not be consistent in the retailer data.
Amazon: Literature of Memory
MARC: Literatures of memory
Amazon: One Eye Laughing, the Other Eye Weeping
MARC: One eye laughing, the other weeping
Amazon: Java(TM) Server and Servlets
MARC: Java server and servlets
Number: ~27%
3. The title in Amazon includes the name of the author; the MARC record separates these into author and title. (Amazon also includes the author name in the author field.) There are also times when this is reversed (eg MARC includes the author name in the title, Amazon does not):
Amazon: John Thelwall's the Peripatetic
MARC: The peripatetic
Amazon: BBC Walking with Dinosaurs
MARC: Walking with dinosaurs
Amazon: Southern Christmas
MARC: Emyl Jenkin's southern Christmas
Number: ~10%
4. Titles so entirely different that it appears to be a wrong ISBN. Often it is an ISBN from another book by the same publisher, possibly a mistaken re-use. Of these, the entries on Amazon appear to be correct, while those in LC records often contain an ISBN that retrieves more than one item from that publisher. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn the the ISBN received by the CIP program is often not the actual final ISBN. When the book then arrives at LoC, it may be hard to determine that or why the ISBN has changed.
Amazon: Harriet Tubman
MARC: Paul Robeson
Number: ~8%
5. There are differences in the treatment of numbers and abbreviations that appear in titles. In some cases, the title on Amazon has been abbreviated beyond what appears on the book, probably by a bookseller saving keystrokes. It's also my guess that in some Amazon entries the abbreviation or number is spelled out to influence retrieval.
Amazon: Ten Best Teaching Practices
MARC: 10 best teaching practices
Amazon: God, Doctor Buzzard, and the Bolito Man
MARC: God, Dr. Buzzard, and the Bolito Man
Number: ~6%
6. Mysterious, undiagnosed, or possible errors in the comparison algorithm. I'll work more on these.
Amazon: Decisive Treatise and Epistle Dedicatory
MARC: The book of the decisive treatise determining the connection between the law and wisdom
Number: ~14%
Link to the Data
This link takes you to a page with comparisons that link to the MARC record held at the Internet Archive and to the Amazon page for the book. You can see these and other differences by looking at the two sets of data. Again, note that this was a quick comparison and there are some errors in the comparison methodology that we are already aware of.
Some Other Observed Differences
Although not included in this group (which only compares titles) there are other differences that I have observed in ONIX data but that I haven't attempted to measure.
7. Authors. An obvious area of difference is that publisher and retailer data does not use the library name authorities form of the name ("Smith, John, 1837-"). Publishers tend to include a display form of the name in their data ("John Smith") and some of them also include the inverted form ("Smith, John"), but there is no concept of unique identification of authors across time and between different publishers. Talking with publisher representatives, I also have learned that the form of the author's name that will be used on the printed book and in publicity may be designated in the contract between the author and the publisher. This does not mean that publishers cannot include a version of the name as found in the LC name authorities file. However, it is likely that there will be multiple forms of the name in non-library data, rather than the single form found in library records.
8. Pagination. I was looking at pagination as part of a de-duping algorithm because it served us well when de-duping within library data as a way to distinguish different editions. This will not be the case between library and publisher data, at least not with the data that I have seen. Publishers have an entirely different measure of pages, and it is (logically) the actual number of pages in the physical book. This is clearly a matter of cost to them, and also a key piece of data about the manufacture of the book. Libraries, instead, record the printed page numbers. This latter is immediately visible to the cataloger, while the publisher count would mean having to actually hand count the pages in the book. In this case, libraries and publishers are each working with the information that is easily found at hand, but the results differ considerably.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Future of Bibliographic Control,LC, 11/13
Notes from the meeting on Nov. 13 of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control.
These are my notes and should NOT be taken to represent accurately the thoughts of the working group, only my quick recording of what I understood at the meeting. Also, I must add the disclaimer that I have been engaged as a consultant to the group for the writing of the report. I attempt in that work to be as faithful to the outcomes desired of the group as I can. However, I admit that pure objectivity is a chimera, so my own opinions may come through in the text below.
There was an introduction explaining the creation of the working group (which you can read about on the working group's web site: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/). The group presented an interim report to the Library of Congress. The full report will be available by December 1 for public comment. The comment period will end on December 15, and the final report will be presented on January 8, 2008.
The report was commissioned by the Library of Congress, but it many of its recommendations involve the the library community and other players in its environment. There are over 100 individual recommendations in five general areas.
The working group concluded that there are three major "sea changes" that are needed in the library community:
1. We must redefine bibliographic control broadly to include all materials, a widely diverse community of users, and a multiplicity of venues where information is sought.
2. We must redefine the bibliographic universe to include all stakeholders, including the for-profit organizations that are involved in information delivery and digitization
3. The role of the Library of Congress must be redefined as a partner with other libraries and with non-library institutions, working to achieve the goals of the library community.
The five areas of recommendations are:
1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through cooperation and sharing of bibliographic records and through the use of data produced in the overall supply chain.
2. Transfer effort into high value activity. In particular, provide greater value for knowledge creation through leveraging access for unique materials held by libraries, materials that are currently hidden and under-used.
3. Position our technology by recognizing that the Web is our technology platform as well as the appropriate platform for our standards. Recognize that our users are not only people but also applications that interact with library data.
4. Position our community for the future by adding evaluative, qualitative and quantitative analyses of resources. Work to realize the potential provided by the FRBR framework.
5. Strengthen the library and information science profession through education and through development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future.
Under each of these areas there are sets of recommendations. The full set of recommendations is fairly detailed, and the group presented high level groupings of recommendations in the first four areas. (Area five was not presented in detail at the meeting.)
In area 1, the recommendations are grouped:
1.1 Eliminate redundancies in the production of bibliographic metadata. This means making use of data that is created elsewhere in the supply chain, and increasing the sharing of bibliographic records and modifications to records. In particular, the group asks for an examination of barriers to sharing.
1.2 Increase the distribution of responsiblity for bibliographic record production. Increase the number of institutions that participate in shared cataloging activities.
1.3 Collaborate on authority record creation. Similar to 1.2, this recommends that the number of participants in authority record creation be increased, but it also asks that we look at the possibility of sharing across sectors and internationally, to reduce the number of times that an authoritative heading must be created.
Area 2 is called "Enhance Access to Rare and Unique Materials." In this area the group states that any efficiencies gained in other areas should allow the redirection of energy to providing access to unique materials that are held by libraries and other cultural heritage institutions. In particular, the group recommends:
2.2 Integrate access to rare & unique materials with other library materials
2.3. Share bibiographic data relating to these materials. The sharing of bibliographic data must not be limited to those areas where copy cataloging is desired.
2.4 Encourage digitization to allow broad access
Area 3 is about technology and the Web:
3.1.1 Integrate library standards into the Web environment
3.1.2 Extend the use of standard identifiers for bibliographic entities, and include those identifiers in bibliographic records.
3.1.3 Develop a more flexible, extensible metadata carrier that can be readily exchanged with non-library applications.
Area 3 also addresses standards:
3.2.1 Develop standards with a focus on return on investment. Do analysis before beginning the standards process.
3.2.2 Incorporate usage data and lessons from use tests in the standards development process
Area 4 is about positioning the library community toward a more progressive future. In this area there are three main recommendation areas:
4.1 Design for today's and tomorrow's user. This means that we must design into our catalogs and other tools the ability to present evaluative information, and to allow and encourage users to interact with bibliographic data. We must also make use of statistical and other computationally-derived information in our user services.
4.2 Realize FRBR. The framework known as FRBR has great potential but so far is untested. It is being used as the basis for RDA, even though FRBR itself is not clearly understood. The working group recommends that no further work be done on RDA until there has been more investigation of FRBR and the basis it provides for bibliographic metadata. [Note: this recommendation is likely to change such that there will be specific recommendations relating to RDA; FRBR will be treated separately.]
4.3 Optimize LCSH for Use and Re-use. Encourage an analysis of LCSH that would move the system toward a more facetted subject system. Work to create more links between LCSH and other subject heading systems in use. Recognize that with the digitization of works the act of subject assignment may benefit from computational analysis.
In the time that I was at the meeting (I had to leave before the question period ended) there were two questions/comments. The first had to do with the fact that while there are costs to today's methods of bibliographic control, that changes in bibliographic control will have costs as well. (Here it would be good to listen again to the talk given by Rick Lugg at the meeting held at LoC. He spoke of the costs of NOT changing, something that is hard to measure but is very real.) The other comment (from Barbara Tillett) mentioned many of the recommendations and stated that LoC is already engaged in, or has rejected, analogous activities. It was acknowledged, however, that LoC had not made these activities public, so the community is generally unaware of the progress made. To me this points out one of the areas that we all need to work on, which is sharing information about our projects and their progress so that the community as a whole can benefit from work done by a single institution.
These are my notes and should NOT be taken to represent accurately the thoughts of the working group, only my quick recording of what I understood at the meeting. Also, I must add the disclaimer that I have been engaged as a consultant to the group for the writing of the report. I attempt in that work to be as faithful to the outcomes desired of the group as I can. However, I admit that pure objectivity is a chimera, so my own opinions may come through in the text below.
There was an introduction explaining the creation of the working group (which you can read about on the working group's web site: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/). The group presented an interim report to the Library of Congress. The full report will be available by December 1 for public comment. The comment period will end on December 15, and the final report will be presented on January 8, 2008.
The report was commissioned by the Library of Congress, but it many of its recommendations involve the the library community and other players in its environment. There are over 100 individual recommendations in five general areas.
The working group concluded that there are three major "sea changes" that are needed in the library community:
1. We must redefine bibliographic control broadly to include all materials, a widely diverse community of users, and a multiplicity of venues where information is sought.
2. We must redefine the bibliographic universe to include all stakeholders, including the for-profit organizations that are involved in information delivery and digitization
3. The role of the Library of Congress must be redefined as a partner with other libraries and with non-library institutions, working to achieve the goals of the library community.
The five areas of recommendations are:
1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through cooperation and sharing of bibliographic records and through the use of data produced in the overall supply chain.
2. Transfer effort into high value activity. In particular, provide greater value for knowledge creation through leveraging access for unique materials held by libraries, materials that are currently hidden and under-used.
3. Position our technology by recognizing that the Web is our technology platform as well as the appropriate platform for our standards. Recognize that our users are not only people but also applications that interact with library data.
4. Position our community for the future by adding evaluative, qualitative and quantitative analyses of resources. Work to realize the potential provided by the FRBR framework.
5. Strengthen the library and information science profession through education and through development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future.
Under each of these areas there are sets of recommendations. The full set of recommendations is fairly detailed, and the group presented high level groupings of recommendations in the first four areas. (Area five was not presented in detail at the meeting.)
In area 1, the recommendations are grouped:
1.1 Eliminate redundancies in the production of bibliographic metadata. This means making use of data that is created elsewhere in the supply chain, and increasing the sharing of bibliographic records and modifications to records. In particular, the group asks for an examination of barriers to sharing.
1.2 Increase the distribution of responsiblity for bibliographic record production. Increase the number of institutions that participate in shared cataloging activities.
1.3 Collaborate on authority record creation. Similar to 1.2, this recommends that the number of participants in authority record creation be increased, but it also asks that we look at the possibility of sharing across sectors and internationally, to reduce the number of times that an authoritative heading must be created.
Area 2 is called "Enhance Access to Rare and Unique Materials." In this area the group states that any efficiencies gained in other areas should allow the redirection of energy to providing access to unique materials that are held by libraries and other cultural heritage institutions. In particular, the group recommends:
2.2 Integrate access to rare & unique materials with other library materials
2.3. Share bibiographic data relating to these materials. The sharing of bibliographic data must not be limited to those areas where copy cataloging is desired.
2.4 Encourage digitization to allow broad access
Area 3 is about technology and the Web:
3.1.1 Integrate library standards into the Web environment
3.1.2 Extend the use of standard identifiers for bibliographic entities, and include those identifiers in bibliographic records.
3.1.3 Develop a more flexible, extensible metadata carrier that can be readily exchanged with non-library applications.
Area 3 also addresses standards:
3.2.1 Develop standards with a focus on return on investment. Do analysis before beginning the standards process.
3.2.2 Incorporate usage data and lessons from use tests in the standards development process
Area 4 is about positioning the library community toward a more progressive future. In this area there are three main recommendation areas:
4.1 Design for today's and tomorrow's user. This means that we must design into our catalogs and other tools the ability to present evaluative information, and to allow and encourage users to interact with bibliographic data. We must also make use of statistical and other computationally-derived information in our user services.
4.2 Realize FRBR. The framework known as FRBR has great potential but so far is untested. It is being used as the basis for RDA, even though FRBR itself is not clearly understood. The working group recommends that no further work be done on RDA until there has been more investigation of FRBR and the basis it provides for bibliographic metadata. [Note: this recommendation is likely to change such that there will be specific recommendations relating to RDA; FRBR will be treated separately.]
4.3 Optimize LCSH for Use and Re-use. Encourage an analysis of LCSH that would move the system toward a more facetted subject system. Work to create more links between LCSH and other subject heading systems in use. Recognize that with the digitization of works the act of subject assignment may benefit from computational analysis.
In the time that I was at the meeting (I had to leave before the question period ended) there were two questions/comments. The first had to do with the fact that while there are costs to today's methods of bibliographic control, that changes in bibliographic control will have costs as well. (Here it would be good to listen again to the talk given by Rick Lugg at the meeting held at LoC. He spoke of the costs of NOT changing, something that is hard to measure but is very real.) The other comment (from Barbara Tillett) mentioned many of the recommendations and stated that LoC is already engaged in, or has rejected, analogous activities. It was acknowledged, however, that LoC had not made these activities public, so the community is generally unaware of the progress made. To me this points out one of the areas that we all need to work on, which is sharing information about our projects and their progress so that the community as a whole can benefit from work done by a single institution.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Hierarchy v. Relationships
The use of hierarchy as an organizing principle keeps coming up. I think we are attracted to hierarchy because of its neatness, even though in fact the real world is organized more like fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets are hard to comprehend, nearly impossible to draw, and can't be slotted neatly into an application.
When people talk about FRBR, they are often focussed on the Group 1 entities, and those are seen as hierarchical. They tend to be shown as:
- Work
-- Expression
--- Manifestation
---- Item
as if we'll fit all of our intellectual works into such a neat hierarchy. T'ain't so. Of all of the relationships that are talked about in FRBR (I almost said "expressed" but that term has now been given a new meaning in this discussion) I think these are the least interesting. And they become even less interesting when we move beyond the traditional inventory control function of the library catalog and begin to see ourselves as navigating in a knowledge universe. But first let me tackle the Group 1 entities.
There are complaints (or remarks, depending on the context) that we don't have an agreed on definition of Work, and that the division between Work and Expression is unclear. They are unclear because in real life there isn't a neat hierarchy that just needs to be modeled. What is a Work is entirely contextual -- when I'm looking for an article, the article is a Work. When I'm subscribing to a journal, the journal is a work. When I'm on iTunes a song is a work, when I'm in the music store the album is a work. A Work is the content I am seeking at that time. In the imaginary universe where I get to create my bibliographic system, a Work will be defined as: anything you wish to talk about, point to, address. So a book-length text is a work, an article in a journal is a work, a journal is a work, a book chapter is a work -- all at the same time and in the same system. For one person the book Wizard of Oz and the movie Wizard of Oz will be a single Work. To a film buff, the director's cut of Blade Runner and the original release are distinct works. To be a Work, it just has to be definable and have a way to name it, that is it has to have an identifier. But anything can be a Work. As a matter of fact, I probably won't use the term Work at all in my universe.
As for Expressions, there will be very obvious Expressions of Works, and there will be fuzzier Expressions. There will be Expressions that express more than one Work. Expression is a relationship, not a subset. If you don't have to organize your bibliographic universe in a hierarchical way, then the need to slot each Expression under a Work goes away, although the relationship can remain.
I'm less sure about Manifestation and Item, even though these are the most concrete of the Group 1 entities. Are they a legitimate focus of a Knowledge Management system, or are they about managing physical objects? When I think about some of the uses of bibliographic data, for instance as citations in a text publication, Manifestation seems to be mainly about locating -- so if I've quoted a passage from a book, I need to cite the manifestation and the page because that's the only way that someone else can find that exact quote. When I include a URL in a document that links to a particular digital manifestation, I am giving the user a direct link to the location. Manifestations and Items will be of interest in some instances, say to rare book collectors, but I'm not at all sure that those instances justify the emphasis they have been given. And if the purpose is primarily inventory control, then I think those relationships will be managed to the extent that they matter to the library. For example, a public library may not terribly care which manifestation of the book Moby Dick is on its shelves, although its inventory system will need to know the barcode, and its acquisitions system will need to store how much the library paid for it and the provider.
The truly interesting relationships in FRBR are those between and among these entities, and those are ones that I have not seen explored. These are the relationships between things: thing1 is a translation of thing2; thing3 is an abridgment of thing4; thing5 extends thing6 in this certain way; thing7 cites thing1; thing8 continues thing3. This is where we get real value, where we provide various interesting paths through which seekers can navigate. This is what we don't provide explicitly in our catalogs today, although a human user may be able to intuit some of these relationships among the works we present.
We have so narrowly defined bibliographic control in libraries that it doesn't really include the relationships between intellectual products, except to the degree that we might make a note that one thing is a translation of another thing. But we see those relationships as "extra" or "secondary," and yet they are the very essence of knowledge creation. It astonishes me that we have focused so completely on the physical items that we have essentially missed what would make our catalogs intelligent.
When people talk about FRBR, they are often focussed on the Group 1 entities, and those are seen as hierarchical. They tend to be shown as:
- Work
-- Expression
--- Manifestation
---- Item
as if we'll fit all of our intellectual works into such a neat hierarchy. T'ain't so. Of all of the relationships that are talked about in FRBR (I almost said "expressed" but that term has now been given a new meaning in this discussion) I think these are the least interesting. And they become even less interesting when we move beyond the traditional inventory control function of the library catalog and begin to see ourselves as navigating in a knowledge universe. But first let me tackle the Group 1 entities.
There are complaints (or remarks, depending on the context) that we don't have an agreed on definition of Work, and that the division between Work and Expression is unclear. They are unclear because in real life there isn't a neat hierarchy that just needs to be modeled. What is a Work is entirely contextual -- when I'm looking for an article, the article is a Work. When I'm subscribing to a journal, the journal is a work. When I'm on iTunes a song is a work, when I'm in the music store the album is a work. A Work is the content I am seeking at that time. In the imaginary universe where I get to create my bibliographic system, a Work will be defined as: anything you wish to talk about, point to, address. So a book-length text is a work, an article in a journal is a work, a journal is a work, a book chapter is a work -- all at the same time and in the same system. For one person the book Wizard of Oz and the movie Wizard of Oz will be a single Work. To a film buff, the director's cut of Blade Runner and the original release are distinct works. To be a Work, it just has to be definable and have a way to name it, that is it has to have an identifier. But anything can be a Work. As a matter of fact, I probably won't use the term Work at all in my universe.
As for Expressions, there will be very obvious Expressions of Works, and there will be fuzzier Expressions. There will be Expressions that express more than one Work. Expression is a relationship, not a subset. If you don't have to organize your bibliographic universe in a hierarchical way, then the need to slot each Expression under a Work goes away, although the relationship can remain.
I'm less sure about Manifestation and Item, even though these are the most concrete of the Group 1 entities. Are they a legitimate focus of a Knowledge Management system, or are they about managing physical objects? When I think about some of the uses of bibliographic data, for instance as citations in a text publication, Manifestation seems to be mainly about locating -- so if I've quoted a passage from a book, I need to cite the manifestation and the page because that's the only way that someone else can find that exact quote. When I include a URL in a document that links to a particular digital manifestation, I am giving the user a direct link to the location. Manifestations and Items will be of interest in some instances, say to rare book collectors, but I'm not at all sure that those instances justify the emphasis they have been given. And if the purpose is primarily inventory control, then I think those relationships will be managed to the extent that they matter to the library. For example, a public library may not terribly care which manifestation of the book Moby Dick is on its shelves, although its inventory system will need to know the barcode, and its acquisitions system will need to store how much the library paid for it and the provider.
The truly interesting relationships in FRBR are those between and among these entities, and those are ones that I have not seen explored. These are the relationships between things: thing1 is a translation of thing2; thing3 is an abridgment of thing4; thing5 extends thing6 in this certain way; thing7 cites thing1; thing8 continues thing3. This is where we get real value, where we provide various interesting paths through which seekers can navigate. This is what we don't provide explicitly in our catalogs today, although a human user may be able to intuit some of these relationships among the works we present.
We have so narrowly defined bibliographic control in libraries that it doesn't really include the relationships between intellectual products, except to the degree that we might make a note that one thing is a translation of another thing. But we see those relationships as "extra" or "secondary," and yet they are the very essence of knowledge creation. It astonishes me that we have focused so completely on the physical items that we have essentially missed what would make our catalogs intelligent.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Our subject mess
Lately I've had occasion to work with a few different groups of people who are delving into library bibliographic data for the first time. Believe me, it is quite revealing to view it from the viewpoint of these novices. Novices only in this one area, because they generally are quite savvy about computing and data. Each new revelation gives me a chance to regale them with an amusing story about "how it got that way." I can explain (note: explain, not justify) why we have no identifiers for key elements like authors and works. I can pretty much explain why we seem more concerned about the package than the content. I can reminisce about moments in the history of library systems development that happened before some members of these groups were born. But I get totally stuck when they point out the mess that is our subject access.
We have two classification systems, Dewey (DDC) and Library of Congress. (LCC) That in itself is not a problem, and it's fairly easy to explain how they developed in different contexts, always making sure to explain that these systems classify the items in a library, not the world of thought.
What is hard is to try to explain what either of them has to do with the Library of Congress Subject Headings.(LCSH) Many folks assume that LCSH is the entry vocabulary into LCC. Thus if there is a classification code in a record that stands for "vocal music, choruses" that there will be a heading in the record that is "vocal music, choruses," and vice versa. They also assume that the two subject systems (classification and subject headings) have the same structure, which would mean that you can "drill down" from music to vocal music then to choruses in either or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. So it is quite confusing to them when they see a record with a call number that would ostensibly be about "vocal music, choruses" based on the classification, but instead the subject heading is "Cantatas, Secular -- Scores." And they are equally confused when the record has another subject heading ("Funeral music") but only the one classification number.
I can't explain this disconnect between the subject headings and the classification scheme, except to say: that's how it is.
Recently, I was browsing through my beloved copy of the DDC from 1899 that still has both its numeric and alphabetical tabs relating respectively to the classification and the "Relativ Subject Index." The RSI is indeed an index to the classification scheme, and it appears that Dewey originally intended it also as the access to the collection:
Meanwhile, no wonder users are confused.
We have two classification systems, Dewey (DDC) and Library of Congress. (LCC) That in itself is not a problem, and it's fairly easy to explain how they developed in different contexts, always making sure to explain that these systems classify the items in a library, not the world of thought.
What is hard is to try to explain what either of them has to do with the Library of Congress Subject Headings.(LCSH) Many folks assume that LCSH is the entry vocabulary into LCC. Thus if there is a classification code in a record that stands for "vocal music, choruses" that there will be a heading in the record that is "vocal music, choruses," and vice versa. They also assume that the two subject systems (classification and subject headings) have the same structure, which would mean that you can "drill down" from music to vocal music then to choruses in either or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. So it is quite confusing to them when they see a record with a call number that would ostensibly be about "vocal music, choruses" based on the classification, but instead the subject heading is "Cantatas, Secular -- Scores." And they are equally confused when the record has another subject heading ("Funeral music") but only the one classification number.
I can't explain this disconnect between the subject headings and the classification scheme, except to say: that's how it is.
Recently, I was browsing through my beloved copy of the DDC from 1899 that still has both its numeric and alphabetical tabs relating respectively to the classification and the "Relativ Subject Index." The RSI is indeed an index to the classification scheme, and it appears that Dewey originally intended it also as the access to the collection:
"HOW TO USE THIS INDEXFrom this I can only presume that the shelves and the subject catalog were in classification order, and the alphabetical index was the index to that classification. I can only guess at this point, from what he says here, that the subject catalog was in classification order, as is the shelf, but also contained the verbal translation of what the decimal classification numbers meant.
Find the subject desired in its alphabetical place in the index. The number after it is its class number and refers to the place where the topic will be found, in numerical order of class numbers, on the shelves or in the subject catalog."
"Under this class number will be found the resources of the library on the subject desired. Other subjects near the one sought may often be consulted with profit; e.g., Communism is the topic wanted and the index refers to 335.4, but 335, Socialism, and even the inclusive division 330, Political economy, also contain much on this subject. The reverse is equally true; the full material on socialism can only be had by looking at its divisions 335.3, Fourierism, 335.4, Communism, etc. The topics which are thus subdivided are plainly marked in the index by heavy faced type."My copy is #3933, originally owned by the Roger Williams Park Museum in Providence, Rhode Island. The current incarnation of the institution appears to be the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium. My copy has many penciled notes in the area of Zoology (DDC 590), which would fit the natural history nature of the institution. (I don't see any evidence of a current library.) By 1900 the "dictionary catalog" would have taken root, so I don't know if the library would have followed Dewey's instructions for the creation of a classified catalog. But I do wonder how we got from a single system that had an alphabetical index to a classification system to a system with an alphabetical index and two classification systems, but in which the index and the classification have essentially each gone their own ways. This is obviously a gap in my education, which I will gladly rectify if you have suggestions for readings.
Meanwhile, no wonder users are confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)