[1098] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Subject Headings for Gopher
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mallen@uwspmail.uwsp.edu)
Mon Aug 31 12:21:36 1992
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:08:57 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: mallen@uwspmail.uwsp.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I agree with Mary Axford, who noted that the NLM MESH headings have a better
structure. As a nursing/medical librarian transferred to an academic library
using LC, I find LC subject headings very unwieldy compared to NLM's MESH and
the CINAHL thesaurus based on MESH. The major difference is the tree
structure, with the very useful explode capability. In addition, each heading
has unique id numbers for each place it occurs in a tree - while many terms
are in only one tree, they can be placed in more than one when appropriate.
It MIGHT be possible to use the number from the most appropriate tree for
classification. For topics where no appropriate MESH heading exists, LC or
hennepin County headings could be selected and added to existing or new trees,
as CINAHL did.
Gopher Virtual Library administrators could discuss this further with local
medical librarians, the MESH staff at the National Library of Medicine, and
Carolyn Fishel, Electronic Information Specialist at CINAHL. Carolyn was
responsible for building on MESH headings and the MESH structure to create the
CINAHL thesaurus which has headings more specific to nursing and allied health
than those available in MESH. She would have an electronic copy, as would
NLM. Those who have written re. access to computer information will find a
tree for this in MESH which could be adapted - no one is deeper into Expert
system research than NLM.
Margaret (Peg) Allen
University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
Internet: mallen@uwspmail.uwsp.edu
