Subject Access to Urban Studies Monographs
Christopher Winters
Abstract
Christopher Winters
Abstract
Library of Congress subject headings (LCSHs) are generally felt to be especially inadequate in dealing with social science materials. I attempted to see whether PRECIS indexing "brought out" what a group of urban studies works were "about" better than LC subject cataloging. PRECIS does turn out to provide more access points than LCHS; but this advantage would disappear in an on-line catalog having key-word access. PRECIS also ends up providing apt headings more of the time than LCSH; its advantage here, however, would diminish if LCSH (1) employed more up-to-date vocabulary and (2) included a time facet more freely. Neither LCSH nor PRECIS turns out to be particularly successful in dealing with "multi-tiered works," those whose "intellectual subject(s)" differ from their "ostensible subject(s)." I argue that the best way to provide good subject access to these (as well as many other kinds of) works would involve supplementing traditional subject headings with abstracts or summaries.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Library of Congress subject headings (LCSHs) are generally felt to be especially inadequate in dealing with social science materials. I attempted to see whether PRECIS indexing "brought out" what a group of urban studies works were "about" better than LC subject cataloging. PRECIS does turn out to provide more access points than LCHS; but this advantage would disappear in an on-line catalog having key-word access. PRECIS also ends up providing apt headings more of the time than LCSH; its advantage here, however, would diminish if LCSH (1) employed more up-to-date vocabulary and (2) included a time facet more freely. Neither LCSH nor PRECIS turns out to be particularly successful in dealing with "multi-tiered works," those whose "intellectual subject(s)" differ from their "ostensible subject(s)." I argue that the best way to provide good subject access to these (as well as many other kinds of) works would involve supplementing traditional subject headings with abstracts or summaries.
Key concepts: Subject (documents), Subject access, Cataloging, Controlled vocabulary, Computer science, Vocabulary, Library science, World Wide Web