LCSH in WebDewey

I always enjoy going through the answers of our user surveys. One that has come up a few times, including the most recent one, is a desire for more mapped LCSH in WebDewey. I hear you! Mappings are a prime example of the value you can get out of WebDewey that just aren't practical in print.

Our current mapping of LCSH tends to be ad hoc. When we're working a certain area, we'll look for relevant LCSH to add on. Once upon a time, the editorial team tried to map all new LCSH every week. That quickly became more than we could chew! And if you've ever seen a mapped LCSH for a really obscure or specific topic, it may well have come from this. As you may know, the bar for authorizing an LCSH is much lower than that for a new Dewey number.

One comment on LCSH mapping in particular intrigued me:

More LC subject headings within the schedules as those tend to be more useful than Relative Index terms. Or at least make them match more

In years past, the editorial team often specifically chose not to map LCSH that were an exact or close match for a Relative Index term. While I can see the logic there, it's not a practice I've maintained. If you browse LCSH in WebDewey, for example, a heading that's not there just isn't there--an equivalent Relative Index term doesn't help.

Of course, it's a different story with keyword searching, which doesn't care about the source of a term. For that reason, I've often created Relative Index terms that differ from their equivalent LCSH--not to be contrarian, but to enhance keyword accessibility. We also have more flexibility with Relative Index terms. For example, we could give two Relative Index terms for close concepts that are clumped into a single LCSH, or use a more internationally recognized version of a US-centric term.

So my questions for you...

1. What are some specific areas (or even specific numbers) that you'd like to see more LCSH added to?
2. Do you prefer Relative Index terms that closely match LCSH, or do you want them to diverge?
3. Any other suggestions related to LCSH in WebDewey?

Comments

[Marianna]

As a cataloging agency with 15+ catalogers, we have conducted a group session in regards to the questions above and have come back with the following responses.

1. Ideally we would like all areas of Webdewey to benefit from the addition of LCSH terms. But to start off with the most beneficial areas to have LSCH terms added to medical popular works and to animal species were the relative index only lists the scientific names. Often our team members have to search for the scientific names of certain animals species in order to determine if they are on the right track and by having the common names present if would make Dewey numbers a lot easier to find.

2. We would like to still retain both the relative index terms and LCSH terms, they can still closely align but it would be our preference for the relative index terms to contain more natural language, for example fish instead of fishes, and non American centric terms to account for the different spellings and meanings between British and American English.

3. A relevancy ranking would also be beneficial.