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.


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


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.



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