Print

Print


I'm not arguing against the use of controlled vocabularies--only that
there's a case to be made for recording uncontrolled terms which match the
term in a 100 $c in a 37X. We wouldn't add such a 37X ourselves (we follow
PCC in preferring controlled vocabulary terms), but I wouldn't revise one
that someone else put on the record. Such a field could have a plausible
use in someone else's system.

Stephen

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Stephen,
>
> What reason would a library have to not use a controlled vocabulary if
> possible? In other words, while LCSH,  MeSH and others don’t have all the
> terms a cataloger might need, it’s hard to see why someone would choose *
> *never** to use controlled vocabularies. If we allowed every library that
> wanted to put its own “folksonomy” on authority records to do so, I would
> think the records could get pretty messy.
>
>
>
> When you say that “If it appears only in 100 $c, there'd be no easy way
> to determine what facet category the term belongs to,” are you talking
> about a computer program determining that? If adding professor to a name
> makes it unique and 374 College teachers $2 lcsh is also on the record,
> it’s hard to see what more information one would need. But maybe I’m not
> understanding what “determining what facet” refers to.
>
>
>
> Ted
>
>
>
-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242