Page 93 - DLIS103_LIBRARY_CLASSIFICATION_AND_CATALOGUING_THEORY

Library Classification and Cataloguing Theory

Notes of verbal and terminological patterns likely to be found among the diverse classes of users and
different groups of specialists, some agreement upon a common standard representing the habits
and preferences of a crossection of those who consult subject catalogues is likely to be necessary.
Intensified efforts to acquaint users with this standard will be required. Third, since some subdivision
of headings will be unavoidable, particularly that by form, a standard list of subdivisions to be
applied as desired will be a feature of the integrated lists. Fourth, conventions for such techniques
as the subdivision of place by topic and topic by place will be flexible, so as to permit each library
to select that approach which seems most serviceable for its clientele. Fifth, some option in utilizing
particular terms as independent headings or as subdivisions will be necessary. Sixth, greater
emphasis will be given to providing definitions and scope notes, both in the general and the
special lists, in order to make the distinctions in meaning and in use which probably will be
essential. And seventh, the development of special lists as optional extensions of general ones,
together with the need to provide for alternative approaches in both general and special lists, will
result in the disappearance of the systematic reference structure of the catalogue which his Pete
and others have held to be necessary. In its place will be substituted a purely utilitarian framework,
designed to provide no more than essential correlation between particular specific headings, and
of course, needed references from terms not employed to those which are. In other words, a
workable plan for integration of general and special subject heading lists will recognize at the
outset that if the reader is to be the focus, standards must take formal notice of individual differences.
Such differences may mean that the subject catalogue requirements in one library or in one
community will be quite unlike those in another, though R. R. Irwin has suggested that the
variations in approach to the catalogue we have assumed do not exist. His evidence is limited,
however, and until corroborative information is available from a more extended study, we must
accept the subjective opinions of librarians that there are discrete local needs for which provision
must be made.

In the assessment of current developments in subject cataloguing it will be noted that relatively
few references have been made to developments in foreign countries. In general, other countries
outside U.S.A have not evolved subject catalogues which correspond to U.S in any large numbers,
so that the problems of American and foreign libraries developments in Subject Cataloguing are
not precisely the same. Few standard lists of subject headings have been devised in other countries,
and when they have, they show strong influence of American practice. If the classed catalogue is
the form accepted, other questions beyond the scope of this discussion will have to be considered.
The catchword subject on the other hand is a hybrid animal, whose permutations are not susceptible
either of orderly discussion or codification. Since classed and catchword subject catalogues are
more common in other countries than alphabetic ones, it is not surprising that most foreign
discussions of subject cataloguing problems relate to these types. We must not forget, however,
that the only comprehensive code for modern subject cataloguing practice prior to the appearance
of Haykin's manual was in the Vatican rules. What does it all add up to? What are the implications
for the future? Two main questions run through discussions of the total cataloguing process, viz.:
(1) How may the effectiveness of the techniques for organizing library materials be improved
(2) How may these techniques be managed so that their cost will not require an excessive portion
of library budgets? Too many cataloguing procedures are based upon tradition, and for too many
years these traditions have gone unchallenged. It has now become necessary to inquire into the
real purposes of the various cataloguing activities, to assess the appropriateness of the methods to
serve them, and to seek alternative means which will serve them better. In particular, concern for
the user of libraries has been given renewed emphasis. Subject cataloguing, like rules for author
and title entry and conventions for descriptive cataloguing, has developed in a haphazard way.
Rationalization of the descriptive cataloguing code and of the rules for author and title entry has

88 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY