Print

Print


Thank you for mentioning this, Mark.  That’s exactly what we have done with our discovery layer here at Cornell: FAST in the facets area on the left hand, LCSH in the record view.  We’re very happy with our implementation of FAST.
        I don’t know how many complications in our implementation people want to hear about.  One thing I always like to emphasize is, we have not taken away the traditional browse index on the LCSH string.  Users who want to do that still can; users who want to slice ‘n dice using facets now have that tool.
--Sarah Ross
Principal Cataloger
110C Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
phone: (607) 255-5752
fax: (607) 255-6110



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

Another approach to FAST is to have these appear only in the facet area of the discovery system (e.g., the left side of the search results view) for filtering purposes.  In the full bib record view, display only the LCSH or what have you.  But I’m not aware of anybody who’s implemented their system in this way—or if this is a good use of FAST.

--
Mark K. Ehlert                 Alma: NA02
Cataloging and Metadata        Primo: MT NA01
  Librarian
O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
University of St. Thomas
<http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>

  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

I feel the same way. I  do care about how a bib record should look to the public. Some libraries may not have the said programs to filter out certain “controlled” subject headings and they may not have enough staff to examine each record like this one and do a manual clean-up.

If we think that “Civil rights movement” is a user-friendly addition to “Civil rights movements,” then, by fuzzy logic, shouldn’t we add “Civil rights movement” to every single bib that has “650 #0 Civil rights movements” in the entire database? Why not?! Why would we want to prioritize and improve the accessibility of this particular resource, ignoring the rest?

Is there a limit to the number of subject headings assigned to each bib? I am old-fashioned. But I remember this (SHM180.3):

[cid:[log in to unmask]]

The record example I gave earlier, unfortunately, contains 25 headings. The original set of headings assigned by the LC cataloger is barely discernable to the public (in OPAC). Frankly, I am not an advocate of FAST headings. If we were to take out all LCSH headings from this record, what would we be left with?

Just for an experiment, use and re-arrange the existing FAST headings, see what we would get.

Yang