Re: LCSH and Linked Data

Owen,

Using the elements of the 650 in the preserved order sounds sensible and 
practical as far as I can work out, and avoid loads of theory (and any 
inconsistencies, policy changes, etc.). Thinking of geographic 
subdivisions, you will catch lots of places at country level, but you 
may miss quite a lot because although subdivisions are coded in the bib 
record as (for e.g.) 650_0$$aEducation$$zEngland$$zLondon. the authority 
record for the place will be entered as something like "151$$aLondon 
(England)". Thinking about it some more, however, these kinds of 
geographic headings will mostly turn up in the names file, not the 
public subjects file at id.loc.gov, so probably not something to worry 
about at the moment, especially if you are not dealing with 651s anyway.

Cheers,

Tom

Owen Stephens wrote:
> Thanks Tom - very helpful
>
> Perhaps this suggests that rather using an order we should check 
> combinations while preserving the order of the original 650 field (I 
> assume this should in theory be correct always - or at least done to 
> the best of the cataloguers knowledge)?
>
> So for:
>
> 650 _0 $$a Education $$z England $$x Finance.
>
> check:
>
> Education
> England (subdiv)
> Finance (subdiv)
> Education--England
> Education--Finance
> Education--England--Finance
>
> While for 650 _0 $$a Education $$x Economic aspects $$z England we check
>
> Education
> Economic aspects (subdiv)
> England (subdiv)
> Education--Economic aspects
> Education--England
> Education--Economic aspects--England
>
>
>     - It is possible for other orders in special circumstances, e.g.
>     with language dictionaries which can go something like:
>
>     650 _0 $$a English language $$v Dictionaries $$x Albanian.
>
>
> This possiblity would also covered by preserving the order - check:
>
> English Language
> Dictionaries (subdiv)
> Albanian (subdiv)
> English Language--Dictionaries
> English Language--Albanian
> English Language--Dictionaries-Albanian
>
> Creating possibly invalid headings isn't necessarily a problem - as we 
> won't get a match on id.loc.gov <http://id.loc.gov> anyway. 
> (Instinctively English Language--Albanian doesn't feel right)
>  
>
>
>     - Some of these are repeatable, so you can have too $$vs following
>     each other (e.g. Biography--Dictionaries); two $$zs (very common),
>     as in Education--England--London; two $xs (e.g. Biography--History
>     and criticism).
>
> OK - that's fine, we can use each individually and in combination for 
> any repeated headings I think
>  
>
>     - I'm not I've ever come across a lot of $$bs in 650s. Do you have
>     a lot of them in the database?
>
> Hadn't checked until you asked! We have 1 in the dataset in question 
> (c.30k records) :)
>  
>
>     I'm not sure how possible it would be to come up with a definitive
>     list of (reasonable) possible combinations.
>
> You are probably right - but I'm not too bothered about aiming at 
> 'definitive' at this stage anyway - but I do want to get something 
> relatively functional/useful
>  
>
>     Tom
>
>     Thomas Meehan
>     Head of Current Cataloguing
>     University College London Library Services
>
>     Owen Stephens wrote:
>
>         We are working on converting some MARC library records to RDF,
>         and looking at how we handle links to LCSH (id.loc.gov
>         <http://id.loc.gov> <http://id.loc.gov>) - and I'm looking for
>         feedback on how we are proposing to do this...
>
>
>         I'm not 100% confident about the approach, and to some extent
>         I'm trying to work around the nature of how LCSH interacts
>         with RDF at the moment I guess... but here goes - I would very
>         much appreciate feedback/criticism/being told why what I'm
>         proposing is wrong:
>
>         I guess what I want to do is preserve aspects of the faceted
>         nature of LCSH in a useful way, give useful links back to
>         id.loc.gov <http://id.loc.gov> <http://id.loc.gov> where
>         possible, and give access to a wide range of facets on which
>         the data set could be queried. Because of this I'm proposing
>         not just expressing the whole of the 650 field as a LCSH and
>         checking for it's existence on id.loc.gov <http://id.loc.gov>
>         <http://id.loc.gov>, but also checking for various
>         combinations of topical term and subdivisions from the 650
>         field. So for any 650 field I'm proposing we should check on
>         id.loc.gov <http://id.loc.gov> <http://id.loc.gov> for labels
>         matching:
>
>
>         check(650$$a) --> topical term
>         check(650$$b) --> topical term
>         check(650$$v) --> Form subdivision
>         check(650$$x) --> General subdivision
>         check(650$$y) --> Chronological subdivision
>         check(650$$z) --> Geographic subdivision
>
>         Then using whichever elements exist (all as topical terms):
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$v)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$x)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$y)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$z)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$v)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$y)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$z)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$v)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$y)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$v)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$y)
>         Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$y--650$$v)
>
>
>         As an example given:
>
>         650 00 $$aPopular music$$xHistory$$y20th century
>
>         We would be checking id.loc.gov <http://id.loc.gov>
>         <http://id.loc.gov> for
>
>
>         'Popular music' as a topical term
>         (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85088865)
>         'History' as a general subdivision
>         (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh99005024)
>         '20th century' as a chronological subdivision (
>         http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476)
>         'Popular music--History and criticism' as a topical term
>         (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2008109787)
>         'Popular music--20th century' as a topical term (not authorised)
>         'Popular music--History and criticism--20th century' as a
>         topical term (not authorised)
>
>
>         And expressing all matches in our RDF.
>
>         My understanding of LCSH isn't what it might be - but the
>         ordering of terms in the combined string checking is based on
>         what I understand to be the usual order - is this correct, and
>         should we be checking for alternative orderings?
>
>         Thanks
>
>         Owen
>
>
>         -- 
>         Owen Stephens
>         Owen Stephens Consulting
>         Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>         Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
>         <mailto:owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Thomas Meehan
>     Head of Current Cataloguing
>     Library Services
>     University College London
>     Gower Street
>     London
>     WC1E 6BT
>
>     t.meehan@ucl.ac.uk <mailto:t.meehan@ucl.ac.uk>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>

-- 
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT

t.meehan@ucl.ac.uk

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 13:51:07 UTC