Authority control Literature review.

Gross, T., & Taylor, A. (2005). What have we got to lose? The effect of controlled vocabulary on keyword searching results. College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 212-30. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database.

This article, from a cataloging journal, is a study on the use of OPAC searches using keywords vs. subject headings. First, the article gives a history of the similar studies that try to address the same question the researchers are looking to find. Their method for the purposes of the study was to look at the query requests of an OPAC system for three days at a single institution and see if any returns would not have been available if the search term had not correlated to a subject heading. The results showed that 35.4 percent of returns would not come up if the LC subject headings were excluded. The study also found that in the case of foreign language titles, the total percent could be as large at 50 percent of returns. Gross and Taylor determined that LC subject headings were a vital part of the cataloging process because their existence benefitted the users much more than if LC subject headings were not available.

Mann, T. (2005). “Will google’s keyword searching eliminate the need for LC cataloging and classification?” (2005, Aug 15). Library of Congress professional guild local 2910. Retrieved April 4, 2009 from http://www.guild2910.org/searching.htm

The foundation of this article plants itself firmly on the concept that the new Google Print is not as effective when it comes to finding appropriate resources because it is utilizing Google’s keyword search algorithms to search through its database and not subject headings. Mann demonstrates using the search phrase “Afghanistan” and “history.” Imputing those into Google tenders more than 11,000,000 hits. Putting “Afghanistan” into an OPAC tenders a list no more than fifty hits long. Each hit is actually a subject heading that links the user to titles within that subject. These subject headings can lead a user to books that do not directly refer the Afghanistan within the title of the work or perhaps only address Afghanistan for a chapter. It also returns all sources in a foreign language. Google’s search method is dependant on keywords within the article and the weight those keywords hold to determine relevance. This means that if your search term translates to something else in a foreign language, then all the results of that language would be lost. Afghanistan in Farsi is certainly not spelled the same as English. Mann contends that the need for subject searching within the library is key for research.


***. (2008). The Peloponnesian War and the future of reference, cataloging, and scholarship in research libraries. Journal of Library Metadata, 8, 53-100.

A more detailed follow up to Mann’s previous article, he continues within the same vein as before, noting that utilizing search engines for research is failure because keywords, while very useful for simple fact finding missions, are not well equipped to handle academic researching needs. Mann uses an example this time of a users need to find information about the Peloponnesian War and the use of tributes to fund that war. The user tried a traditional web based search engine. Mann uses the metaphor of the five blind men who come across an elephant. The first only feels the tail and claims it’s a rope and so on and so on. None can see the entire picture because each is too caught up with the very localized. The same is true for Google searching. One cannot see the whole elephant with keywords because it divides the whole too far down. Subject headings are better way to address information, but putting the parts together to make a whole picture. Mann details how a user can use all of the functions of a library OPAC to refine or expand upon the topic, using techniques like related record searching, and searching for literature reviews as other ways to find similar information. Mann suggests that there is a need for less seamless one-time searching and more need for multiple search techniques.

Marshall, J. (2006). Controlled vocabularies: implementation and evaluation. Key Words, 14(2), 53-7, 59. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database.

Marshall’s article is the second in a series about controlled vocabulary. She briefly summarizes part one of the series and informs the reader that this second part should be used with the intention that a controlled vocabulary is already in place and one is deciding how to use it. Marshall begins by giving different options of how one could display controlled vocabulary. One was is similar to the LC and Sears schedule, giving a term, and the broader and narrower topics within the same controlled vocabulary. She also showcases index entry, multi level hierarchy, top term, and static concept map styles as other means to implement controlled vocabularies. She then gives several ways to search a controlled vocabulary. She describes eight distinct components of searching with controlled vocabulary including text operants, a user interface, and user feedback cycles. These all have to do with the means of searching with controlled vocabulary. Her final point is to show how one evaluates the controlled vocabulary. One is through heuristic critique, where a panel of experts determine how well the vocabulary works. She also points readers to an article on how to prepare for an expert panel to evaluate the controlled vocabulary thesaurus. She leaves with the final thought that a controlled vocabulary thesaurus is never completed until it is no longer used for indexing or is no longer updated. Controlled vocabulary’s work is never done until it is retired.

Willer, M. (2006). Name authorities in the library context. International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 35(3), 55-7. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database.

Willer begins by prefacing that this article will make three points and ask one question. The first point is a sort of history lesson detailing the IFLA’s principles, standards and concepts. The IFLA is essentially a group dedicated to an international authority system and its implementation. The beginnings of this group have its roots in the 1960’s and can still be felt through their workings with national authority systems in 2003 at a meeting of experts on international cataloging code. Her second point describes what happens to authority records in a networked environment. When looking at a national catalog or national union of catalogs, the systems work by making their uniform heading the authority for subscribers to that particular catalog or union. This is especially difficult with union catalogs because the authority cannot be considered true unless all authorized forms conform to the uniform heading. Willer points to CERL (Consortium of European Research Libraries) as an organization that has found a way around this hiccup. The CERL thesaurus is actually composed with a number of different national cataloging rules so that libraries have a choice according to national traditions or local user needs. Willer’s third point concerns the reader with the interoperability of the system into other organizations. She explains that archives and museums have addressed an interest in working co-operatively with the IFLA. It shows a mutual understanding and acceptance on the level of conceptual models and agreement on interoperable content. These different information-holding bodies could work together to make a more uniform authority, if they could agree to build it together. Willer’s question is a big one. Is the authority control community ready to move toward national or international authority control? She wonders if the folks responsible for information and communication technology will take charge, or if those responsible for authority control can get their act together.