Search (1981 results, page 4 of 100)

0.030647675 = product of:
  0.1225907 = sum of:
    0.1225907 = weight(_text_:headings in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1225907 = score(doc=1383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

0.030647675 = product of:
  0.1225907 = sum of:
    0.1225907 = weight(_text_:headings in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1225907 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 2102, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2102)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many large digital collections are currently organized by subject; although useful, these information organization structures are large and complex and thus difficult to browse. Current online tools and visualization prototypes show small, localized subsets and do not provide the ability to explore the predominant patterns of the overall subject structure. This study describes subject tree modifications that facilitate browsing for documents by capitalizing on the highly uneven distribution of real-world collections. The approach is demonstrated on two large collections organized by the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results show that the LCSH subject tree can be reduced to 49% of its initial complexity while maintaining access to 83% of the collection, and the MeSH tree can be reduced to 45% of its initial complexity while maintaining access to 97% of the collection. A simple solution to negate the loss of access is discussed. The visual impact is demonstrated by using traditional outline views and a slider control allowing searchers to change the subject structure dynamically according to their needs. This study has implications for the development of information organization theory and human-information interaction techniques for subject trees.

0.030647675 = product of:
  0.1225907 = sum of:
    0.1225907 = weight(_text_:headings in 2970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1225907 = score(doc=2970,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 2970, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2970)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve searching by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users' searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST prototype complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

0.030647675 = product of:
  0.1225907 = sum of:
    0.1225907 = weight(_text_:headings in 3292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1225907 = score(doc=3292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 3292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Providing efficient access to information is a crucial library mission. Subject classification is one of the major pillars that guarantees the accessibility of records in libraries. In this paper we discuss the need to associate person IDs and URIs with subjects when a named person happens to be the subject of the document. This is often the case with biographies, schools of thought in philosophy, politics, art, and literary criticism. Using Semantic Web compliant data in subject name headings enhances the ability to collocate topics about a person. Also, in retrieval, books about a person would be easily linked to works by that same person. In the context of the Semantic Web, it is expected that, as the available information grows, one would be more effective in the task of information retrieval. Information about a person or, as in the case of this paper, about a researcher exist in various databases, which can be discipline specific or publishers' databases, and in such cases they have an assigned identifier. They also exist in institutional directory databases. We argue that these various databases can be leveraged to support improved discoverability and retrieval of research output for individual authors and institutions, as well as works about those authors.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=551,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the reasoning, methodology, and impact behind a semi-automated cataloging process for electronic theses and dissertations, and to explain the importance of the retention and addition of cataloger-created metadata. The authors explain an automated process that is initiated by ProQuest and student (author) entered data, and through the addition of metadata by catalogers, including the subject headings, classification number, and so on. The study includes a survey of the public service librarians' perceived usefulness of the cataloger- and ProQuest-generated metadata to describe theses and dissertations.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=2935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study concerns the overlap between author-supplied keywords and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) bibliographic records in the library catalog. The article provides a discussion on uniqueness, matching, and complementariness based on a replication of Strader's methodology and rubric from a 2009 article. Findings support most of Strader's conclusions, including the complementary nature of keywords and controlled vocabularies. Both keywords and LCSH provide unique terms that enhance access. Researchers also broke new ground regarding partial matching, particularly within LCSH. The fact that uniqueness matters has implications for the continued use of LCSH, for LCSH maintenance, and for further research.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 2969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=2969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2969)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The German Integrated Authority File (Gemeinsame Normdatei, GND), provides a broad controlled vocabulary for indexing documents on all subjects. Traditionally used for intellectual subject cataloging primarily for books, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB, German National Library) has been working on developing and implementing procedures for automated assignment of subject headings for online publications. This project, its results, and problems are outlined in this article.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In their 2005 study, Gross and Taylor found that more than a third of records retrieved by keyword searches would be lost without subject headings. A review of the literature since then shows that numerous studies, in various disciplines, have found that a quarter to a third of records returned in a keyword search would be lost without controlled vocabulary. Other writers, though, have continued to suggest that controlled vocabulary be discontinued. Addressing criticisms of the Gross/Taylor study, this study replicates the search process in the same online catalog, but after the addition of automated enriched metadata such as tables of contents and summaries. The proportion of results that would be lost remains high.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Two Indigenous frameworks were successfully applied to a significant collection of junior Maori language material at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Nga Kete Korero Framework is used to assign levels to readers designed for structured literacy development and formed the basis of a new classification system. Nga Upoko Tukutuku is an Indigenous subject headings schema developed to empower and enrich records using Maori knowledge systems and terminology. Library staff worked collaboratively with Maori language literacy experts to transform access to the material. The Indigenous frameworks, their application for reclassification and record enhancement, and associated benefits of the project are described.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Resource description and discovery have been facilitated generally in two approaches, namely bibliographic control and metadata, which now may converge in response to current issues and challenges of providing subject access. Four categories of major issues and challenges in the provision of subject access to digital and non-digital resources are: 1) the advancement of new knowledge; 2) the fall of controlled vocabulary and the rise of natural language; 3) digitizing and networking the traditional catalogue systems; and 4) electronic publishing and the Internet. The creation of new knowledge and the debate about the use of natural language and controlled vocabulary as subject headings becomes even more intense in the digital and online environment. The third and fourth categories are conceived after the emergence of networked environments and the rapid expansion of electronic resources. Recognizing the convergence of metadata schemas and bibliographic control calls for adapting to the new environment by developing tools that exploit the strengths of both.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The treatment of subjects by Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) has attracted less attention than some of its other aspects, but there seems to be a general consensus that it needs work. While some have proposed elaborating its subject categories-concepts, objects, events, and places-to increase their semantic complexity, a working group of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has recently made a promising proposal that essentially bypasses those categories in favor of one entity, thema. This article gives an overview of the proposal and discusses its relevance to another difficult problem, ambiguities in the establishment of headings for buildings.Use of dynamic links from subject-based finding aids to records for electronic resources in the OPAC is suggested as one method for by-passing the OPAC search interface, thus making the library's electronic resources more accessible. This method simplifies maintenance of links to electronic resources and aids instruction by providing a single, consistent access point to them. Results of a usage study from before and after this project was completed show a consistent, often dramatic increase in use of the library's electronic resources.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is a subject structure used to index large library collections throughout the world. Browsing a collection through LCSH is difficult using current online tools in part because users cannot explore the structure using their existing experience navigating file hierarchies on their hard drives. This is due to inconsistencies in the LCSH structure, which does not adhere to the specific rules defining tree structures. This article proposes a method to adapt the LCSH structure to reflect a real-world collection from the domain of science and engineering. This structure is transformed into a valid tree structure using an automatic process. The analysis of the resulting LCSH tree shows a large and complex structure. The analysis of the distribution of information within the LCSH tree reveals a power law distribution where the vast majority of subjects contain few information items and a few subjects contain the vast majority of the collection.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of Linked Data has made its entrance in the cultural heritage sector due to its potential use for the integration of heterogeneous collections and deriving additional value out of existing metadata. However, practitioners and researchers alike need a better understanding of what outcome they can reasonably expect of the reconciliation process between their local metadata and established controlled vocabularies which are already a part of the Linked Data cloud. This paper offers an in-depth analysis of how a locally developed vocabulary can be successfully reconciled with the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Arts and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) through the help of a general-purpose tool for interactive data transformation (OpenRefine). Issues negatively affecting the reconciliation process are identified and solutions are proposed in order to derive maximum value from existing metadata and controlled vocabularies in an automated manner.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although subject hierarchies are widely used to index document collections, few tools leverage their structure to facilitate collection browsing. This is mostly due to the complexity of such structures that include thousands of nodes. This paper proposes a new approach to simplify subject hierarchies based on the distribution of documents among the nodes. A random walk algorithm simulates the route of a user within the hierarchy, under the assumption that the user is attracted by the most populated nodes. Poorly visited nodes can be identified and eliminated, leaving a structure containing only the nodes that best represent the content of the collection. Experiments on a collection indexed using the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) show that, as compared to the state-of-the-art simplification method, the random walk-based approach gives access to a larger part of the collection for the same structure size, and offers more flexibility to customize the complexity of thestructure.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=2948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Why do catalogers use two systems, one notational like Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the other terminological like Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), to reach the same goal: subject description and access? This article, divided into two parts, first surveys the library science literature to address the unsatisfying answers given to that question and, secondly, provides a new answer based on the linguistic theory of Roman Jakobson. Jakobson's theory that language is always twofold, the act of selecting words paired with the act of combining words, is proposed as a theory of subject access, with LCSH doing the work of selection and LCC thework of combination.