Thank you, Louise, that DOES help. I hope that distinction is as clear when I apply it as it is when you describe it. Would you agree that the scope note for the "Econometric models" subdivision is somewhat lacking? I wonder whether it might be improved. Thanks, Pete Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ratliff, Louise Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:35 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Mathematical models vs. econometric models Hi all, Econometric models are based on real data, while mathematical models are theoretical. One way to quickly detect which sort of model is portrayed is the shape of the graphs. Graphs based on data tend to be spikey, up and down, because they are based on specific quantities or values. Mathematical models tend to be more regular curves, because they are used to predict future conditions in a more theoretical environment. They are two separate kinds of models. Hope this helps, Louise Louise Ratliff Social Sciences and Map Catalog Librarian UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center 11020 Kinross Ave. Box 957230 Los Angeles, CA 90095-7230 (310)206-5853 -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:19 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mathematical models vs. econometric models Thanks, Karen. Whatever the intent of "Econometric models," I think its scope note does suggest that only "Econometric models," and not "Mathematical models," should be used as a subdivision under economic phenomena. Unless, perhaps, there are mathematical models of economic phenomena that do not actually "test or measure" the phenomena, as the scope note requires. This is a distinction I would find extremely hard to make, but I am no expert in economics. If "mathematical models" actually should sometimes be used under economic phenomena, the scope note seems misleading to me, and I have to imagine there are many more catalogers who are baffled. I wish the scope note could be revised. Fortunately it would be pretty easy for a researcher to look under both subdivisions. But it is frustrating to try to apply ambiguous instructions. Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Jensen Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Mathematical models vs. econometric models Hi Pete, Econometric models are a more specific kind of Mathematical model. It seems there are "regularly-used" models that due to the type of mathematics used are dubbed "Econometric models." For this reason, LCSH exist in both these forms (could also be primarily for matching purposes?): United States--Economic conditions--Mathematical models United States--Economic conditions--Econometric models Whether the application of this distinction has always been correct is another question. I don't think a SACO proposal to add x-references to force the use of econometric models would fly. Anyway, that's my best guess. Regards, Karen Sent from my iPhone > On May 29, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi, folks, > > There are 98 hits in LC's catalog for "Foreign exchange rates--Mathematical models." > > There are 40 for "Foreign exchange rates--Econometric models." > > Interestingly, there are 4 for "Foreign exchange rates--Forecasting--Econometric models," but none for "Foreign exchange rates--Forecasting--Mathematical models." > > In all my years cataloging I have never really understood how to determine whether to use one subdivision or the other under economic topics. And I wonder how many other people do. > > The scope note for "Econometric models" says "Use as a topical subdivision for works that employ mathematical or statistical models used to test or measure economic phenomena." > > Does this mean that "Econometric models" should ALWAYS be used under > topics that are intrinsically economic? (That's how I read it, though > honestly I think the phrasing is a little odd. I'd have expected > "works that employ mathematical or statistical models to test or > measure...," but it's hard to see how the meaning would be different > that way.) > > If so, a whole lot of mistakes are being made. > > What's the story? > > Pete Wilson > Vanderbilt University > >