Date:         Wed, 25 May 2005 09:03:49 -0700
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         steven austin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: MIC and cataloguing
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

"Yes, thesauri can be of great help...

I can't believe you made a plural of "thesaurus." That's so unnecessary.
:)

Steven Austin



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] MIC and cataloguing

On Fri, 20 May 2005, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:

> All of this is really best done by means of a thesaurus structure
(controlled
> vocabulary). Time invested in creating a full set of authorized
descriptors
> and maintaining it is to the good of all, but obviously to the cost of
those
> who do the work. In a previous posting I have lamented that with the
> appearance of fast hard drives, the perceived need for thesauri
disappeared -
> sequential sorting being resorted to. But really, it is the only way
of
> mastering a field and obtaining precision in retrieval. Just think of
the
> fact that anything misspelt in the wrong place of a word will not be
> retrieved using the correct form of that word.

Yes, thesauri can be of great help, but once some shell of a system is
established, can it not be refined dynamically?

I wonder about the functionalism of the subject heading in music.
Perhaps
some can tell me what its place might be these days.

Robert Ashley's "In memorium - Crazy Horse : Symphony isn't a Symphony,
even if one bib record 53116114 says it is (gives the recording the
subject heading Symphonies). But then the Guide to Subject headings
doesn't give us much information as to when to use that term, so we look
in the dictionary, and find that the term has had different meanings
over
the years, so maybe Ashley's work is a Symphony because he calls it a
Symphony.

If we are looking for Symphonies for band, true, a subject search should
versus keyword could narrow down the number of results, however, how
many
patrons are likely to think to type in Symphonies (Band) or Symphonies
band?

As for misspellings, if a spell check can offer a limited range of
possible "corrections" to a word I may have misspelled, why not have a
spell
check for those entering data? I know that connexion does not offer
this.

Speaking as one who, as a library student assistant, would photocopy
extra
copies of the main entry card and then type analytics, I still don't
understand why (or it at least, so it seems to me) that the process of
cataloging hasn't changed much since the inception of the MARC record,
which in a sense, was just an attempt to automate the process of making
cards...and to provide shared information...just in the way we would
photocopy cards from other dictionary catalogs. What am I missing in
this?

I also wonder about notions of description when there is no object, just
a
digital file of audio. While I have seen several approaches to this, any
citation on the fundamental notions of "description" without an object
would be of interest. From the examples of such cataloging I  have seen,
there seems to be an attempt to adopt the notion of a file into the
mindset of an object. This seems to me to be as much at cross purposes
as
using a system to make cards for a shared digital information resource.


Karl