In a message dated 2/9/2004 8:28:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I’m conducting a research project on how museums, websites, science
 organizations, libraries, and any other organizations with image
 collections indicate subjects for the images – and my specific interest is
 in systems (subject headings, classification, searchable captions, etc.)
 which were designed in-house; that is, not the standards like Library of
 Congress, Chenhall’s Nomenclature, MeSH, Dewey, the Art & Architecture
 Thesaurus, etc. >>

As someone who relies heavily on Library of Congress subject headings for 
subject access to images, I'm a little puzzled by the restrictions of this 
survey.  I have to ask myself why anyone would WANT to exclude LC subject headings 
from their subject indexing repertoire, since using such a standard authority 
list promotes communication and access among different repositories.  I also 
think it's a user-friendly concept, enabling researchers from a wide variety of 
disciplines and backgrounds to know what to expect, rather than having to 
learn some unique, home-grown system of terminology.

Having said that, I have to admit that my own "system" is pretty eclectic and 
free-form.  Our rule is that every catalog record must contain at least one 
LC subject heading, but beyond that almost anything goes.  If a picture 
contains identifiable objects or actions which seem useful as subject access points 
and the names of the objects, activities, or events cannot be found in LCSH, so 
be it.  But our methods are informed by the kinds of visual research which 
I've learned our patrons are likely to conduct, so a catalog record for a 
photograph might typically contain an LC term (usually more than one), AAT terms for 
process, style, etc., plus common terms for objects and events depicted, plus 
specialized terms within a particular discipline.  The latter area is not 
well developed, as it often requires consultation with experts in various 
disciplines, and I've never established a workable schedule to accomplish such a goal 
with much uniformity.  If I had a group of pictures involving agricultural 
machinery, for example, I might enlist the aid of an agricultural historian to 
identify and name the machinery, techniques, and activities depicted.  Pictures 
of people wearing exotic, regional, or simply non-contemporary clothing might 
require a costume expert to provide useful nomenclature.  When possible, in 
something of an infrequent catch-as-catch can fashion, I ask specialists to 
identify and name, for indexing purposes, details in  photographs which make them 
useful as historical evidence.  I've had a transportation curator identify 
vehicle types and maker and model names for early automobiles, for example.  
Thus the cataloging may be cumulative and progressively more detailed and complex 
as time and energy permit.  Much of our preliminary cataloging is therefore 
not very thorough, and many records are always awaiting further input from 
specialists.  We strive for consistency, however, and I often find that LC subject 
headings help to standardize variant terms which have cropped up, even in 
specialized areas.

So we haven't developed an internal authority list, so to speak, and 
presumably wouldn't qualify for your survey.  I'm inclined to think that cataloguers 
are increasingly relying upon the most popular standardized lists, and I'll be 
very curious to see what kind of response you get.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).