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
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
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 188.8.131.52:
Modification of Existing Terms
Indexers and searchers
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
be communicated electronically or via printed forms. Such proposed changes
be considered by the controlled vocabulary editor and board, using the criteria for term selection in sections
If a term is modified, the date of
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
University of Washington Libraries
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.