Print

Print


Thank you, Adam, for saying something about this. I wasn't paying much
attention until I saw your email. This is *very* concerning. The statement,

"In some cases, *multiple terms for a single topic may co-exist *due to the
size of LC’s catalog and issues related to updating the OPAC. When this
occurs the authority records for former terms will clearly state “For
retrieval purposes only” to ensure that the term is no longer assigned."
[Emphasis mine.]

indicates that LC is ignoring one of the basic tenets of vocabulary control
based on the institution's own convenience. It violates the basic concepts
presented in ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010). The definition of* controlled
vocabulary* is clearly stated on page 5:

*controlled vocabulary*

A list of terms that have been enumerated explicitly. This list is
controlled by and is available from a controlled vocabulary registration
authority. All terms in a controlled vocabulary must have an unambiguous,
non-redundant definition. At a minimum, the following two rules *must* be
enforced:

1. If the same term is commonly used to mean different concepts, then its
name is explicitly qualified to resolve this ambiguity.


2. If multiple terms are used to mean the same thing, *one of the terms is
identified as the preferred term in the controlled vocabulary and the other
terms are listed as synonyms or aliases.*  [Emphasis mine.]


The plan to use earlier forms of terms in bibliographic metadata and
keeping those earlier terms in the list as "related terms," clearly
disregards the basic definition of controlled vocabulary. Controlling
synonyms and distinguishing homographs are the *raisons d'être* for
authority control. So, how does this decision get made? LC's interest in
apply this idea to a controlled vocabulary "due to the size of LC's catalog
and issues related to updating the OPAC" appears to be a direct
contradiction of a long-standing principle of our profession: *"The
convenience of the public is alawsy to be set before the ease of the
cataloger." *-- Charles Ammi Cutter, *Rules for a Dictionary Catalog*, 4th
ed. Washington, DC: GPO, 1904, p. 6. Our patrons should not have to search
synonymous terms to find what they are looking for if a controlled
vocabulary is employed.

I also want to echo Bob's concern that LCDGT "*is being used as an
experimental guinea pig for this new “principle” and the real goal is to
apply it to LCSH (and why not the NAF while we’re at it?).*" This seems
like a real possibility if this is allowed to happen with LCDGT, and it
could very much inflict more damage to a standard (yes, a flawed standard)
on which we all depend. I am concerned that this is being considered
because, as we've heard so many times about so many things, "linked data
will take care of it." I would again like to echo Bob by stating, linked
data is not yet here. And, there are plenty of skeptics who are concerned
that we are placing all of our eggs into a single conceptual basket. One
that may or may not work the way we hope it will.

It is still essential for LC to appropriately manage equivalence
relationships in our vocabularies, and to honor the principles of unique
heading and uniform heading. I am very disappointed that PTPC is
considering going in the opposite direction. I would respectfully ask them
to reconsider this decision, because it is not a good one.

Danny
---------------------------------------------------------

*Daniel N. Joudrey, Ph.D.*

Professor

School of Library and Information Science (SLIS)

Simmons University

300 The Fenway, P-205B

Boston, MA 02115                           617.521.2863

*Pronouns*: *he/him/his*

*Twitter*: *@dnjoudrey*

*Author of:*

 *https://bit.ly/2MiBjkK <https://bit.ly/2MiBjkK>*l and
http://bit.ly/214jPWw
*                          <http://bit.ly/214jPWw>*


On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:04 AM Deborah Tomaras <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that having multiple terms listed as "related" but with one not
>> valid anymore for actual usage (but coded as if for actual usage!) causes
>> multiple problems for the LCDGT vocabulary's development, and for multiple
>> library catalogs and authority files.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>    - Most discovery layers don't allow patrons to see authority records.
>>    So having a "for retrieval purposes" note within an authority record that
>>    will be invisible to most users will not clarify anything in actual catalog
>>    searches done by patrons. One could argue that libraries simply should not
>>    assign, or should reclassify, affected terms in their local catalogs to
>>    eliminate this issue. However, discovery layers ingest metadata from so
>>    many different streams that I doubt it would be possible to locate and
>>    eliminate problematic terms entirely--especially if conflicting terms are
>>    still "valid" in authority files.
>>    - Many discovery layers have facet display limits, so having former
>>    terms that should be see-fors taking up valuable shelf space is detrimental
>>    for search faceting purposes.
>>    - This could also cause potential DEI issues, if terms get updated
>>    from offensive or outdated versions, yet the old terms remain as "for
>>    retrieval purposes" entries and so are still visible in library catalogs
>>    for patron viewing and usage (for example a possible change from "Blacks"
>>    to "Black people").
>>    - For libraries that rely on automated authority control and updating
>>    of terms, having two conflicting preferred terms will cause these authority
>>    updates to fail. Libraries would then have to manually update terms, and
>>    repeatedly handle "ambiguous" authority headings reports in their local
>>    systems.
>>
>> If the purported reason for Library of Congress's decision to follow this
>> non-ANSI procedure is, as it appears, to be based solely on issues related
>> to their individual catalog ("due to the size of LC's catalog and issues
>> related to updating the OPAC"), then I agree with previous posters that
>> it's not sufficient justification for sidestepping standards and causing
>> problems in everyone else's catalogs. I would urge Library of Congress to
>> reconsider, and avoid having multiple, conflicting terms authorized
>> simultaneously in the LCDGT.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Deborah Tomaras
>> Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
>> James A. Cannavino Library
>> Marist College
>> 3399 North Road
>> Poughkeepsie, NY  12601
>> [log in to unmask]
>> (845) 575-3000 x2408
>> (she/her/hers)
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
>> behalf of Diana M. Brooking <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:06 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] LCDGT Announcement
>>
>>
>> *[EXTERNAL EMAIL]*
>>
>> But delays in implementing BFM could be the case for any change of
>> preferred term in any library.
>>
>>
>>
>> Should the structure of a widely used controlled vocabulary be dependent
>> on the BFM of any particular library, even if that library is LC?
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************
>>
>> Diana Brooking
>>
>> Cataloging Librarian
>>
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>> Box 352900
>>
>> Seattle WA 98195-2900
>>
>>
>>
>> 206-685-0389
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
>> Behalf Of *Ed Jones
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:55 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: LCDGT Announcement
>>
>>
>>
>> I expect the LC practice is simply a pragmatic one applicable only in
>> cases where a change of preferred term entails a large amount of LC
>> bibliographic file maintenance. If so, then the existence of two preferred
>> terms for any given concept will always be temporary, persisting only until
>> the related BFM is completed. (At least that’s how I read the LC
>> announcement.)
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
>> Behalf Of *Adam L Schiff
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:47 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PCCLIST] LCDGT Announcement
>>
>>
>>
>> While it is exciting to finally know that the moratorium on LCDGT will be
>> lifted soon, and backlogged proposals will be processed and decided upon, I
>> have some serious qualms about the model for former terms that LC is using,
>> and I don't believe that it is in accordance with ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005
>> (R2010).  The standard is at
>> https://groups.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12591/z39-19-2005r2010.pdf
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.niso.org_apps_group-5Fpublic_download.php_12591_z39-2D19-2D2005r2010.pdf&d=DwMFAw&c=qwHaVVscXk_NBWd7DQFk0g&r=vZdb4enrYPbal23bD_gETA&m=A1C-PoZNQmXU6xq64Y3fKkmuVdWDGNSqtZ_ZtiE5ryM&s=gfsoMbMW9x9wu0CGJNRHOhqYOWRg3ojnxU0oat3XDEw&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Section 6.2.3 of ANSI/NISO says:
>>
>>
>>
>> A History Note is used to track the development of terms over time. These
>> notes provide important guidance for researchers who are interested in a
>> topic covering many decades. It is especially important to indicate when
>> and how a term has changed over time. If appropriate, the history note may
>> also include the date discontinued, the term that succeeded the term,
>> and/or the term that preceded it. History Notes are frequently marked by
>> the abbreviation HN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming from this example that Venetian windows was once an authorized
>> term, the example shows it as a Used For term.  This is further
>> substantiated by 11.3.1.2:
>>
>>
>>
>> 11.3.1.2 Modification of Existing Terms
>>
>>
>>
>> Indexers and searchers should be able to propose modifications to
>> existing terms or their relationships, explaining the rationale and
>> supplying supporting documentation for the proposed changes. Like candidate
>> term nominations, such proposals may be communicated electronically or via
>> printed forms. Such proposed changes should be considered by the controlled
>> vocabulary editor and board, using the criteria for term selection in
>> sections 6 and 7. If a term is modified, the date of the change should
>> be recorded in the history note (see section 6.2.3), and a USE reference
>> should be made from the old form to the new form. If the controlled
>> vocabulary is used in an indexing system, the date on which an old term was
>> last assigned should be included in the history note. If the relationships
>> are modified, a record of the old ones should be maintained in the history
>> note as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> (I have highlighted the most important sentence above).
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on my reading of the ANSI/NISO standard, I don't think these
>> existing LCDGT terms follow it:
>>
>>
>>
>> Having two separate authorized terms for the same concept does seem to me
>> a violation of ANSI/NISO.  My reading of the standard would result in
>> Oceanians being a UF on Pacific Islanders, and there could also be history
>> note in that record stating when the change from earlier form Oceanians was
>> made.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also don't think it serves users in a faceted retrieval system to be
>> presented with multiple boxes to select for the same concept:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Each group should be distinct.  If a user sees a box for an earlier form
>> and misses another box further down the list for a later form, they will
>> miss retrieving items that they would have wanted to see.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam L. Schiff
>>
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>> (206) 543-8409
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
>> behalf of Cannan, Judith <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 20, 2021 1:50 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* LCDGT
>>
>>
>>
>> PCC members,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am pleased to announce that on October 1, 2021, LC will start a new
>> model for the LC Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT).  I have shared this
>> message with SAC and I will be sending it to SACO.  This announcement will
>> also be posted on LC website and the PCC website.
>>
>>
>>
>> Judith Cannan
>>
>> Chief, PTCP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Cataloging, Metadata, & Digitization Services
> University of Minnesota Libraries
> 170A Wilson Library (office)
> 160 Wilson Library (mail)
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>