With the explanations and examples offered in the schedules H1148 and H1250 as reference sheets, the discussion oscillated from one end of the scale to the other, from the good points, to the bad points, with the confusing points in between. [the LC revised memos H1148 and H1250 from the Subject cataloging manual are available at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/artcat.html]
Were the explanations and examples given for H1148 and H1250 enough and/or clear enough = no single answer
General opinion of examples offered in explanations = bad
The expanded list of century markings as free floaters = good!
Why not even more century markings, or smaller time denominations? = wish list
What does and does not apply to architecture headings = confusing
Why not apply these changes to decorative arts, graphic arts, or photography in similar or uniform patterns = bad, confusing
What sort of global changes will be possible within the differing systems and what will it take to get the various programs in use to do them = no single answer
What sort of "manual" clean-up will be necessary, or should it be necessary to re-do all records done prior to Feb. 1, 2001, or should notes and cross references in existing authorities be enough = no single answer
Is the expansion of century markers at the expense of being able to qualify the existing qualifiers which imply time limits better or worse = confusing
Did the changes regarding the legal use of "Modern" as a qualifier, make things better or worse = no single answer
OTHER: what about leaving a space after an open date, before a sub-heading? = no single answer (different systems read and manifest the space or no space differently)
what sort of work for recon-ing exhibition catalogs is being done? collection level? analytics? both?
QUESTIONS: should there be some sort of meetings, official or unofficial gathering, at ARLIS\NA to continue discussion on headings: questioning what's unclear? asking for more?
could a compilation of examples of LC records showing up in the databases help clarify some points by showing how and how fast LC is putting the new sub-headings into practice under which headings? [examples are being compiled at http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9783/artcat/revshex.html]
should there be some sort of "pop quiz" or worksheet circulated: this is the old form: ___ what should the new form be? _________ to afford some practice and comparison of interpretation?
SUMMARIZING THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS: are these changes all they were expected to be when first defined and requested? are they anticlimactic in view of expanding computerization, particularly the use of keyword searching?
TENTATIVE TIME AND PLACE FOR NEXT MEETING:
Monday, April 30th, 2001 at the Whitney
Topics: more on the subject headings; (hyper)links embedded in bib records [a MARBI discussion paper on the topic can be found at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp112.html]; open to suggestions
notes compiled by firstname.lastname@example.org