Position open: Digital Library Program Manager - San Diego, USA

tagging LCSH, user xrefs, linking LCSH's

Three topics:
1. tagging subject headings
2. users making xrefs
3. linking LSCH's by "similarity."

Can't remember where I read it, but someone suggested letting
users tag subject headings.  While this sounds like a good idea,
I've been trying to imagine what this would look like, and how
it might be used.  And I can't. Can you?

I also wonder if user supplied _see_ and _see also_ cross references
would be a good idea.  Now I get a glimmer of how this might be useful.
Perhaps this is really what was really being suggested in the tagging
subject
headings idea.

LibraryThing has volunteers doing "authority" work by "linking"
variant spellings of a single author name.  While looking at this,
it struck me that perhaps volunteers could link subject headings in a
similar way.
Saying that LCSH 1 is very similar to LCSH 2.  Perhaps
there could be a way to let people assign a "similarity number" to the link,
with 5 being very similar and 1 not so much.  As you know from browsing
catalogues, similar or related subject headings show up because of links to
a particular title.
Or because your search keywords retrieved titles that have similar LCSH's.
This would be a way to link SH's without the title(s).  Could you then make
LCSH "clouds?"

Anyway, these are all just musings, but I wonder what you think of these
ideas?
Brainstorming, you know...

Kevin

Re: tagging LCSH, user xrefs, linking LCSH's

Three cheers for speculative brainstorming! Some points:

1. I can't imagine users ever wanting to tag subjects directly.
2. Although users may not tag subjects, they will tag books and books
have subjects. Because of this, LibraryThing computes relationships
between subjects and tags. So, for example, the LibraryThing tag
"globalization" relates to the following subjects, in descending order
of work-level overlap:

Globalization > Economic aspects (149)
Globalization (107)
Globalization > Social aspects (105)
Information society (99)
Diffusion of innovations (97)
International economic relations (96), etc.

The above is just "counting." There are better strategies for
evaluating the relationships between linked entities.

3. Users might be induced to confirm or dismiss these relationships,
if it were made stone-cold-easy for them.
4. LCSH has a whole "see" and "see also" system, not fully exploited
by LibraryThing and others.
5. FAST provides another way of approaching these issues.
6. I'm not sure you could incentivize users to weight correlations
between subjects and subjects, tags and subjects, etc. But I do see
benefits from  baking in" some idea of relevance, even if the data is
supplied algorithmically.
7. See Fiction Finder for FAST-based clouds. I think you have to
"break apart" LCSH to produce a cloud anyone would want to see.
8. I've been thinking about foreign-language subjects. LibraryThing
has a library-data-based book-to-book recommendation algorithm, using
DDC, LCC and the subject classifications we have. These are mostly
LCSH, but not entirely. Anyway, it spots correlations no matter what
system they're in and without any attempt to "understand" them. So,
I've noticed it basing English-language recommendations on the Finnish
and Swedish headings applied to non-English editions of English works.
I have no idea how these systems work, but they encode relationships
that an algorithm can pick up on and use to improve LCSH-based
findability.

Tim

> I also wonder if user supplied _see_ and _see also_ cross references
> would be a good idea.  Now I get a glimmer of how this might be useful.
> Perhaps this is really what was really being suggested in the tagging
> subject
> headings idea.
>
> LibraryThing has volunteers doing "authority" work by "linking"
> variant spellings of a single author name.  While looking at this,
> it struck me that perhaps volunteers could link subject headings in a
> similar way.
> Saying that LCSH 1 is very similar to LCSH 2.  Perhaps
> there could be a way to let people assign a "similarity number" to the link,
> with 5 being very similar and 1 not so much.  As you know from browsing
> catalogues, similar or related subject headings show up because of links to
> a particular title.
> Or because your search keywords retrieved titles that have similar LCSH's.
> This would be a way to link SH's without the title(s).  Could you then make
> LCSH "clouds?"
>
> Anyway, these are all just musings, but I wonder what you think of these
> ideas?
> Brainstorming, you know...
>
> Kevin
>

LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

I'm going to attend the first public meeting of Library of Congress'
task force on the "bibliographic future" -- it's being held on Thursday
at Google. I have no idea what the task force is aiming at, and the
background paper for this meeting strikes me as being rather weak. This
particular meeting is on "Users and Uses of Bibliographic Data"
(http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/). I will attempt to
blog the meeting in some detail, if it has substantial content.

Upcoming meetings are May 9 in Chicago, on "Structures and Standards"
and July 9 in northern Virginia on "Economics and Organization".

kc

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Re: LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

Re: LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

That's a great quote -- where is it from? And the minutes of the
inaugural meeting are much more informative than the discussion paper
that is supposed to go along with it.

As for that quote, at the recent ALA I was at a discussion of RDA, and I
passed along a question that had been asked of me: Is RDA being based on
user studies? And Barbara Tillett responded (sounding a bit annoyed):
"You don't base standards on user studies!"

kc

Simon Spero wrote:
> The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress Working
> Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which gives a bit more
> context. The best overview available at the moment are the minutes of
> the inaugural meeting
> <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306final.pdf>.
>
> From all I've heard this WG could actually get a lot done.  It's a
> good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first meeting to
> be held is focused  on user needs.
>
>  To quote  a Line:
> "[XXXXX] is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
> problem by committee, with predictable results … No data on users'
> needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change the
> rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss the design
> of eggs."
>
> Simon
>
> On 3/5/07, *Simon Spero* <sesuncedu <at> gmail.com
> <mailto:sesuncedu <at> gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     There's  a bit more information available in the minutes of the
>     inaugural meeting
>     <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306final.pdf>,
>     which are available online.
>
>     The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress
>     Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which puts
>     things a little bit more context.
>
>     It's a good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first
>     meeting to be held is focused  on user needs. To borrow a Line,
>     "AACR2 is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
>     problem by committee, with predictable results … No data on users'
>     needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change
>     the rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss
>     the design of eggs."
>
>     Simon
>
>
>     On 3/5/07, *Karen Coyle* < kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net
>     <mailto:kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>         I'm going to attend the first public meeting of Library of
>         Congress'
>         task force on the "bibliographic future" -- it's being held on
>         Thursday
>         at Google. I have no idea what the task force is aiming at,
>         and the
>         background paper for this meeting strikes me as being rather
>         weak. This
>         particular meeting is on "Users and Uses of Bibliographic Data"
>         ( http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/
>         <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/>). I will
>         attempt to
>         blog the meeting in some detail, if it has substantial content.
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Re: LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

Re: LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

If we based standards (in part) on user studies, perhaps we could avoid
doing a lot of time-consuming, expensive work on something our users
don't care about and don't use.

What standard do I use to keep the echo in libraries from getting any
louder?

M. Andrews

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:15 AM
To: NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

That's a great quote -- where is it from? And the minutes of the
inaugural meeting are much more informative than the discussion paper
that is supposed to go along with it.

As for that quote, at the recent ALA I was at a discussion of RDA, and I
passed along a question that had been asked of me: Is RDA being based on
user studies? And Barbara Tillett responded (sounding a bit annoyed):
"You don't base standards on user studies!"

kc

Simon Spero wrote:
> The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress Working
> Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which gives a bit more
> context. The best overview available at the moment are the minutes of
> the inaugural meeting
>
<http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306
final.pdf>.
>
> From all I've heard this WG could actually get a lot done.  It's a
> good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first meeting to
> be held is focused  on user needs.
>
>  To quote  a Line:
> "[XXXXX] is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
> problem by committee, with predictable results ... No data on users'
> needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change the
> rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss the design
> of eggs."
>
> Simon
>
> On 3/5/07, *Simon Spero* <sesuncedu <at> gmail.com
> <mailto:sesuncedu <at> gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     There's  a bit more information available in the minutes of the
>     inaugural meeting
>
<http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306
final.pdf>,
>     which are available online.
>
>     The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress
>     Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which puts
>     things a little bit more context.
>
>     It's a good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first
>     meeting to be held is focused  on user needs. To borrow a Line,
>     "AACR2 is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
>     problem by committee, with predictable results ... No data on
users'
>     needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change
>     the rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss
>     the design of eggs."
>
>     Simon
>
>
>     On 3/5/07, *Karen Coyle* < kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net
>     <mailto:kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>         I'm going to attend the first public meeting of Library of
>         Congress'
>         task force on the "bibliographic future" -- it's being held on
>         Thursday
>         at Google. I have no idea what the task force is aiming at,
>         and the
>         background paper for this meeting strikes me as being rather
>         weak. This
>         particular meeting is on "Users and Uses of Bibliographic
Data"
>         ( http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/
>         <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/>). I will
>         attempt to
>         blog the meeting in some detail, if it has substantial
content.
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Re: LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

FWIW, I am begging to tire - mightily - of LC's supposed pre-eminence in
all things library, as if it were first-among-unequals.  Perhaps LC's
some of the baggage the profession has heaped on LC since forever as our
de-facto national library needs to be carried some other way.  LC can
return a more limited role described by its name, and more importantly
be just one library among many.

M. Andrews

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:15 AM
To: NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] LoC meeting at Google on Bibliographic Future

That's a great quote -- where is it from? And the minutes of the
inaugural meeting are much more informative than the discussion paper
that is supposed to go along with it.

As for that quote, at the recent ALA I was at a discussion of RDA, and I
passed along a question that had been asked of me: Is RDA being based on
user studies? And Barbara Tillett responded (sounding a bit annoyed):
"You don't base standards on user studies!"

kc

Simon Spero wrote:
> The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress Working
> Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which gives a bit more
> context. The best overview available at the moment are the minutes of
> the inaugural meeting
>
<http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306
final.pdf>.
>
> From all I've heard this WG could actually get a lot done.  It's a
> good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first meeting to
> be held is focused  on user needs.
>
>  To quote  a Line:
> "[XXXXX] is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
> problem by committee, with predictable results ... No data on users'
> needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change the
> rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss the design
> of eggs."
>
> Simon
>
> On 3/5/07, *Simon Spero* <sesuncedu <at> gmail.com
> <mailto:sesuncedu <at> gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     There's  a bit more information available in the minutes of the
>     inaugural meeting
>
<http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/docs/LCWGMinutes110306
final.pdf>,
>     which are available online.
>
>     The full name  of the working group is "Library of Congress
>     Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control", which puts
>     things a little bit more context.
>
>     It's a good sign that the  meetings are open, and that the first
>     meeting to be held is focused  on user needs. To borrow a Line,
>     "AACR2 is one of the most remarkable examples of trying to solve a
>     problem by committee, with predictable results ... No data on
users'
>     needs were collected: instead cataloguers discussed how to change
>     the rules, rather as if hens were to gather together to discuss
>     the design of eggs."
>
>     Simon
>
>
>     On 3/5/07, *Karen Coyle* < kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net
>     <mailto:kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>         I'm going to attend the first public meeting of Library of
>         Congress'
>         task force on the "bibliographic future" -- it's being held on
>         Thursday
>         at Google. I have no idea what the task force is aiming at,
>         and the
>         background paper for this meeting strikes me as being rather
>         weak. This
>         particular meeting is on "Users and Uses of Bibliographic
Data"
>         ( http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/
>         <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/>). I will
>         attempt to
>         blog the meeting in some detail, if it has substantial
content.
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Re: Book tagging: Amazon and LibraryThing

I previously wrote:
|Tim Spalding wrote:
||I made an ISBN feed, so libraries could compare their holdings with
||LibraryThing
|
|I've downloaded your file to compare with our public library's
|333,000-record bib database, not all of which have ISBNs. (It'll take
|a while, though--I've got a lot of other things on my plate, too.)

Well (after filtering out microforms, maps, pamphlets, magazines, and
equipment), here are the results for ADULT materials *only*:

[The first line would be read something like this:
145650 (56.6%) of the 257475 ISBNs that our library has in the given
category (in this case, "grand total") matched ISBNs in LibraryThing's
ISBN list]

=====================================================
NUMBER OF ISBNs THAT MATCHED LibraryThing's ISBN LIST
=====================================================

                 Matches   Items     Percent

GRAND TOTAL:     145650    257475    56.6

Book:            139410    216657    64.3
Nonbook:           6240     40818    15.3

Book subtotals:

FICTION TOTAL:    31948     39755    80.4

Fiction:          19537     23969    81.5
Mystery:           7928     10296    77.0
SciFi:             2873      2941    97.7
Western:            281       864    32.5
Gen pbk fic:        472       611    77.3
Romances:           857      1074    79.8

NONFIC TOTAL:     83592    124348    67.2

000's:             2350      3080    76.3
100's:             3504      4753    73.7
200's:             4870      5906    82.5
300's:            11535     19047    60.6
400's:             1142      1460    78.2
500's:             3114      4308    72.3
600's:            18688     29770    62.8
700's:            14331     21615    66.3
800's:             6573     10014    65.6
900's:            11113     16369    67.9
Biographies:       6372      8026    79.4

=====================================================

As I mentioned, I've got other things going on, too, so it may be a week
or two before I can post YOUTH results, unless you don't want/need those
results because of the nature of LT's ISBN list.  By the way, these
breakdowns are pretty easy on our system because we created a
5-character positional code (LOCATION) in every item, based primarily on
formats and DDC/genres.  I massaged the output of our III system to
eventually (after comparing against LT) come up with a file where each
entry had the form "xxxxxiiiiiiiiii n"--x is the positional code, i is
the ISBN, and n is 1 or 0, depending on whether that ISBN was found (via
a binary search) in LT's sorted ISBN list or not.  By using VBS's
regular expression object in an OCLC Connexion OML (VBA-like) macro, I
can do counts on the file using a pattern match on the 5-character codes
and summing the 0/1 results of matching LibraryThing's ISBN list.

I hope these results are interesting and useful!

Harvey

--
===========================================
Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
847/506-2644 - FX: 847/506-2650 - Email: hhahn(at)ahml(dot)info
OML & Scripts web pages: http://www.ahml.info/oml/
Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat