Other IA Scanning Partners

Import of content from other IA scanning partners (CDL, others)

Identify titles in IA that are relevant to BHL by:

1) Call Numbers

• GC, Q, QH, QK, QL, QR, S, SB, SD, SF, SH
• Decided by an ad hoc committee

2) Subjects

• Subjects.txt
• Determined by most frequently used LCSH in BHL titles.
• Tom Garnett comments TG Edits to Subject terms for ingesting IA non.doc

Discussion
BHLMissed.xls shows the books already contributed to BHL by partner libraries that we would miss using only the criteria above. We have taken that larger list and consolidated down to this file, CountBySubclass.xls, counting the most frequently occurring LC subclasses.

Note (Bernard): 22% of BHLmissed.xls = NHM London (no LC classmarks) so maybe those weren't really missed ???

MBLWHOI - 60% of our "missed books" are improper or missing LC call numbers. Actual number missed is less than 300 titles. Top 4 call numbers: QP (over 50%), G, QE, QM.

NYBG items: "X" as the first letter in the call number denotes serials. The second letter is the beginning of the title. Therefore, all "X_" books are not catalogued by subject.

Noting the comment above, I think we have a problem if we don't know how different folks were creative with the LC call number usage (or not use at all).

So, now, I'm (Suzanne) confused on how to help narrow down the selection of things in IA that BHL might want to ingest. I think we can only go by LC class number if we believe the libraries USED LC class number. And we can only go by subject headings if we know the thesaurus they used (LCSH or MESH or some other?) Do we take a group from that indicate some sort of class range that looks coherent and then take random samples and see if the taxonomic intelligent tools kick back some hits?

NYBG (2/11/2009) 82% of the items 'missed' for NYBG are the incorrect serial class numbers. 15% of NYBG items had no class number at all. The LC Subject headings used for NYBG serials are LC correct, but minimal. A comment on the Subject list (nice list, by the way), I will agree with Tom's argument about removing more 'common' terms but for a different reason. If we ingest materials from European libraries that do not use English, then only the latin terminology will have meaning. DW

The OCLC Conspectus outlines the LC class numbers by subject. Check out the "Overview" tab OCLCconspectus.xls. I compared the OCLC conspectus with CountBySubclass.xls in the 'BHL_OCLCcompared' tab, but after some thought (and input from NYBG during my visit)...I'm left wondering...what exactly is being counted in the CountBySubclass spreadsheet?

Action Item

Please review CountBySubclass.xls by Friday, Jan 23, 2009, and make your recommendations about which call numbers to add to our list in 1) above. Record your comments here:

• Subclass - Count
• XA - 648
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE : a legit LC class number for X does not exist. NYBG uses this form for serials.
• XB - 494
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• QE - 478
• ** ChrisF: Include, it's Geology.
• AS - 418
  • DonW : Include, these are for learned societies (proceedings of, etc.)
• XJ - 365
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• QP - 259
  • ChrisF: Include, it's Physiology.
• GN - 166
  • DonW: Include, Anthropology
• XT - 131
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XH - 110
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XI - 110
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XF - 92
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• AP - 89
• XC - 88
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XG - 69
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• F - 68
• AM - 64
• XE - 58
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• G - 56
• UNC - 54
• XZ - 34
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XL - 33
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• XD - 32
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• Z - 30
  • DonW: Include, Bibliographies
• XV - 26
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• DU - 24
• XK - 19
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• QM - 17
• SK - 15
• XU - 15
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• RC - 10
• XY - 10
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• QB - 9
• XN - 9
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• E - 8
• PQ - 6
• NK - 6
• XW - 6
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• DT - 6
• B - 6
• QA - 5
• DS - 5
• r - 5
• QC - 5
• XP - 4
  • DonW : DO NOT INCLUDE
• DL - 4
• RA - 4
  • DonW: Include, this is public aspects of medicine and NYBG include uses of plants in traditional medicines
• QL - 4
  • DonW: This is where NYBG throws (yet another) wrench into the works. QL is a legit LC classification for Zoology (hello AMNH and Harvard....), but we use it to add more level of detail into cataloging plant families (since we wouldn't be using it for Zoo stuff) and it fits nicely into the shelving, coming as it does after the QK (botany....)
• QH - 3
  • DonW: Include, this is Natural History
• BL - 3
• DP - 3
• TD - 3
• CB - 2
• DA - 2
• GB - 2
• GR - 2
• GT - 2
• QK - 2
  • DonW: Include, General botany
• PZ - 2
• PR - 2
• HB - 1
• QI - 1
• TS - 1
• TN - 1
• AZ - 1
• TL - 1
• BJ - 1
• AC - 1
• BX - 1
• HD - 1
• CT - 1
• D - 1
• DK - 1
• GK - 1
• LA - 1
• KF - 1
• PN - 1
• ST - 1
• SB - 1
  • DonW: Include, this is plant culture
• RS - 1
  • DonW : Include, this is for materia medica or uses of plants for medicine
• PF - 1
• Q - 1
• ND - 1
• NA - 1
• QW - 1
• N - 1
• PS - 1