Re: Interoperability - subject classification/terminology

From: Tim Brody <tdb01r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:22 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Aron" <guyaron_at_YAHOO.COM.AU>

> ... I would still
> like clarification as to whether the original poster
> was being asked to contribute LC classification
> numbers or LC headings.

I think the thread started with a concern that choosing LC headings when
submitting an article to an e-print (E-Prints.org?) archive is burdensome.

>From my limited experience catagorisation serves two purposes:
1) Allowing the location of items within a physical system (e.g. library
shelves)
2) Locating items on a common theme/subject, as a means of discovery

1) is replaced by URIs (URLs, DOIs, etc) in the online age. For the research
literature citations (and citation analysis) should cover 2), supplemented
with free-text searches.

As the Web has grown it has gone from classification (Yahoo directory), to
boolean-search (Altavista), to graph-based search (Google). Each of these
steps has come about because of a factor increase in the information to
search across, a process that requires decreasing human effort, and as the
classification schemes themselves become so large as to be meaningless.

I suspect the same will be true of the research literature.

So the moral of my story is: let the computers worry about indexing, and let
the humans worry about access and impact.

All the best,
Tim.
Received on Wed Mar 12 2003 - 14:12:22 GMT