Print

Print


Thanks, Sarah!

It’s great to see how FAST headings are used in Cornell’s library catalog. The actual implementation (beginning from 2014- ?) must have been arduous and complicated. I am surprised that your institution has even done a large-scale retrospective project by converting all LCSHs (in older records, wherever possible) to FAST headings. Could you divulge a bit more about the process?

1) Did you do the entire conversion locally or did you re-import bib records from OCLC (older records, but newly “enhanced” with FAST headings)?

2) How did you deal with “left overs”—subject terms that are either “Invalid/See reference” (“Central banks” [--> Banks and banking, Centro], “Epistemology” [--> Knowledge, Theory of], Gender studies [--> Gender mainstreaming) or simply resist “slice ‘n dice” process (valid LSCH [e.g., terms from NAF], but not/not yet in FAST vocabulary, such as “Eyes on the prize (Television program)”)?

3) What happens if you encounter bibs with solely FAST headings (singletons, such as “Philosophy,” “Ethics,” “Space and time”, etc., don’t count; only consider such text strings: “Philosophy—History—Bibliography,” “Art, Modern—20th century—Exhibitions”, “Homer.--Odyssey—Concordances,” etc.), AND you need to re-construct new sets of LCSH headings to support “the traditional browse index on the LCSH string”?

Yang


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Ross
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 7:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

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