I can’t think of a less likely subject for a newspaper editorial than the merits of LC Classification systems. Yet today’s New York Times has just that.
It talks about the New York Public Library
In the Canadian law library context, all major private law firms with national practices, save one, use modified KF
Speaking of classification systems, the controversy over the Calhoun Report commissioned by the Library of Congress is heating up. Inside Higher Education is reporting on Thomas Mann
“[The report’s] recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings and use ‘fast turnaround’ time as the ‘gold standard’ in cataloging, are particularly unjustified,” he wrote. He believes that the suggestions would “have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.”
Nan Ernst, an archivist with the Library of Congress, believes that such changes, if carried out, would have a negative “ripple down” effect on college and university libraries. “The traditional and primary function of libraries to focus on print publications is getting short-shrift. Everyone is excited about digital libraries, but a whole lot of important information could soon be lost.”
Funny, I never thought library catalogues would be so newsworthy.
As the NYT opines:
Sooner or later, everyone who loves a library broods about how the books are arranged.