Fantasy is Fantasy

This post is the opinion of Netanel Ganin and is in no way to be construed as an official communication from any section of any institution.


[bolded terms are a mention of a LC vocabulary term]

A brief overview of the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials [LCGFT] follows:

From the introduction to the LCGFT manual:

In 2007 the Library of Congress began a project to develop genre/form terms, which describe what a resource is, rather than what it is about, as most subject headings do.

[emph mine]

The vocabulary is [along with the Demographic Group Terms and Medium of Performance Terms] part of LC’s foray into faceted vocabularies. Traditionally form has been handled through a $v in a 6XX field, but with this vocabulary [and some of its precursors such as the Moving Image Genre Form Guide or Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama] catalogers can express ‘is-ness’ in a separate field from ‘about-ness’ [of-ness is a whole other kettle of fish].

I, Robot” may be about RobotsArtificial intelligence, etc. but it’s genre/form is Science fiction, Short stories, etc.

I think this is a great idea! We’ve long since known that people want to know the form of a material before selecting it, heck we stuck it right in the middle of the title field in $h with a general material designation. If a patron is looking for a resource by title, and there’s a play, motion picture, and novel all with the same title — that can be an important initial piece of information by which to limit their search.


So what’s the problem? I’m worried that we’re actually not as faceted as we could be. The problem is actually right in the name of the vocabulary. Genre/Form.

It’s two things: genres and forms!

Let me show you what I mean:

  • Science fiction
  • Science fiction comics
  • Science fiction films
  • Science fiction plays
  • Science fiction poetry
  • Science fiction radio programs
  • Science fiction television programs

That’s seven terms, each of which expresses a genre, followed by the form. [the unadorned “science fiction” is part of the literature hierarchy and is textual]

This is by no means an outlier either, there are eight permutations for “Political”, seven permutations for “Fantasy” and “Horror”, six for “Detective and mystery”, “Thrillers”, and “Westerns” [this is not exhaustive! Explore the vocab yourself and find more]

Remember that every single term in this or any LC vocabulary requires research on the part of the proposer and approval by the Policy and Standards Division at LC.

What if we encoded genre and form separately?

Rather than 47 terms, we could express all of those unique genre/forms with eight form terms and seven genre terms. That’d make for a leaner vocabulary and more precise machine processing.

  1. Leaner vocabularies without crossing of the streams are easier to maintain and introduce new terms [without having to worry that introducing a new genre means adding additional ones for every possible genre/form combo]
  2. Machine processing of a unique genre or unique form [rather than a combo] is easier to match to other vocabularies from form specific disciplines which wouldn’t include the form in their term.

Ultimately what I’m trying to get at is what the title says: fantasy is fantasy. Whether it’s a comic book, a tv show, or poetry — it’s all of the fantasy genre.

Let’s keep our forms and our genres separate.

Advertisements

Stop it with Yer Dang “Hebrew Fiction”

Oh there’s Netanel, off on another of his patented rants about Hebrew fiction and how much he hates it.

tumblr_inline_n5u0xtXbcw1ryxhvf.jpg

 

My beef is with

650 _ 0 Hebrew fiction.

and its very good friend:

650 _ 0 Israeli fiction.

If I had a Spanish-language specialty, I’d probably be complaining about Spanish fiction, but my specialty is Hebrew, so here we are.


Now look, you know and I know (and I know that you know) that subjects belong in 650s and genre/forms belong in 655s, we’re not going to rehash that whole biz here.

Phew-man-575
You, right now.

 

So then why am I even bringing this up? Well here’s the thing, I feel you. There currently aren’t any LCGFT terms which adequately cover “language of fiction” or “national origin of fiction” — heck I’ll even give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re trying to enter

655 _ 7 Hebrew fiction $2 lcsh

and maybe OCLC is just flipping it to a 650 upon controlling the heading. Because the thing is people do want access to their fiction by these facets, so I understand your impetus to give them that access.

What I’m suggesting is that we’re going about this the wrong way. If we push for authorizing every “$language fiction” and “$nation fiction” as LCGFT terms, we’re going to end up with the same bloat we currently suffer from in LCSH.

Let’s leverage the metadata we already have to give users these facets. The “Lang” element (characters 35-57 in the 008 field) contains a three digit code which can be dereferenced into a language. The “Ctry” element (characters 15-17 in an 008) contains a code which can be dereferenced into country of publication.

Write a macro that upon presence of a ‘1’ or ‘f’ in “LitF” (character 33 in an 008 or 16 in an  006) generates a 655 of “X fiction” upon export. We can treat them as we do pattern headings and any [Language] fiction is allowed, without needing to add every term individually.

Whadda ya think?

 


UPDATE ON SAME DAY

As the very wise and detail-oriented MarcinaColdClimate has pointed out to me:

I have erred!

“Ctry” is place of publication of this manifestation — if for example (her example to be precise), you were cataloging a Canadian publication of Tintin, you’d end up with

655 _ 7 Canadian fiction.

When of course Tintin is Belgian.

FEAR NOT — I HAVE IMMEDIATELY SHIFTED MY IDEA

66922695.jpg

Linked data.

Pretty good idea, right?

No, but seriously — in the work Name Authority Record — place of origin of work (RDA 6.5) is recorded in 370  $g. Our more-clever and powerful cataloging tools will be able to easily fetch that data for us. Problem solved.

 

 

Mysteries and Detectives and Fiction

This is not a post wrought through white-hot fury and righteous anger. Sorry. Sometimes I just have a specific heading on my mind that I can’t cram into 140 characters.

giphy.gif
Gina doesn’t mind if I post less Serious Topics somtimes

Detective and mystery stories has a UF of Detectives—Fiction. This is a problem.

Remember our good friend LCGFT? Of course you do. Well it didn’t always exist, and even once it DID exist, literary terms were only added recently.

So here’s the thing, back in the day pre-LCGFT — we were sloppier about mixing our genres/forms and our subjects. So if you assigned a Sherlock Holmes story:

650 _ 0 Detectives and mystery stories

(Or more likely, Detective and mystery stories, English — but now I’m quibbling)

It was correct.

giphy.gif
Good job, us in the past!

 

But nowadays we are more careful and thoughtful about this mixing.

Subjects (650s) ought to be for what the resource is about

Genre/forms (655s) are for what the resource is.

 

A Sherlock Holmes story isn’t about ‘Detective and mystery stories’, it’s about speckled bands, blue carbuncles, or evil mormons.

(Seriously, have you read Study in Scarlet?!)

evilmormon.jpg
This is basically the second-half of that novel

 

Anyway — those are subjects, and then for form, we’d look to LCGFT and find:

Detective and mystery fiction

So today, a good array of headings might be:

650 _ 0 Detectives $v Fiction.

650 _ 0 Carbuncles $z Goose $v Fiction.

655 _ _ Detective and mystery fiction.

But then you go and control them — and SNAP! That first one becomes Detective and mystery stories, ruining your perfect array.

Now my understanding is that as LCGFT grows in use and acceptance that the subfield v terms will be phased out entirely of LCSH, but until that happens we need to watch out for UFs like this that convert a Subject–Form string into one that is purely form.

 

LCGFT Manual

Okay, I’m still recovering from ALA MidWinter 2016, and attentive followers will note that I actually tweeted out this thing’s existence prior to the conference!

So why wait until now to post, you ask? I WAS BUSY. Sorry.

Don’t fret y’all — I already e-mailed my comments to Janis Young at LC, because I know my feedback is hella valuable. But why should you miss out on my aforementioned valuable feedback? You shouldn’t. Here are some highlights/musings. Also do not take this to be an authoritative play-by-play, READ THE MANUAL.

[Note, I’m not including any of my feedback on typographical errors because that’s hardly substantive enough for the likes of you!


 

MARC Coding of LC Genre/Form Terms Assigned in Bibliographic and Authority Records J 105

The most interesting part of this memo (to me) (beside the Danny Joudrey shout out in example 1.a) is 1.b

A $3 subfield may be used to describe the part of the resource to which a term applies. Examples:

505 0# $a volume 1. A-H — volume 2. I-Z — volume 3. Biographies of important figures in education.

655 #7 $a Encyclopedias. $2 lcgft
655 #7 $3 volume 3: $a Biographies. $2 lcgft

While $3 is in the MARC spec for the 650 field, there’s nothing in the Subject Heading Manual that explicitly states that you can assign headings to pieces of a resource like this. I find it interesting that they lay it out so clearly in the first memo for the LCGFT.

 

 

Assigning Genre/Form Terms J 110

This is the clutch memo to read, if you read NO others, read this one.

1. General rule. Assign genre/form terms only as they come readily to mind after a superficial review of the resource being cataloged.
That’s the first rule, and frankly it’s pretty good. Get it done.
“Say, this movie has a dragon on the cover!”
“Code it Fantasy films”

 

Note: The use of the phrase “significant proportion” is deliberate. Catalogers should take the intent of the resource into account and display good judgment when assigning terms from multiple levels of the hierarchy in this manner. (emph mine)

O&O, Inc lol laughing omg bette davis
Bette has strong feelings about Cat Judge
Lest you miss your faves in LCGFT — fret not! We still have both Rule of Three, and Rule of Four in place.
12. Subdivision of genre/form terms. Genre/form terms may not be subdivided, neither topically, geographically, chronologically, nor by form.
So that’s the last time I expect to see
655 _ 7 Science fiction films $z France. $2 lcgft
or some such in a master record! Ya hear me?

 

 

When to Establish a New Genre/Form Term J 120

2. New genres and forms that are not yet identifiable. When a resource being cataloged is of a genre or form that appears to be new but it is judged to be not yet definable and identifiable, assign available terms that most accurately describe the genre/form of the resource.

It happens to us all, sometimes you’re cataloging a resource and you go to analyze its genre/form and suddenly you’re all
what omg zoom frown miranda sings

IT IS UNIDENTIFIABLE

Okay, so don’t just make something up for that oddity of a resource.

 

 

Authority Research for Genre/Form Term Proposals J 160

Note: Crowdsourced web sites and social media such as Wikipedia, DBpedia, Twitter, etc., are not generally considered to be authoritative when proposing genre/form terms.

So make sure to do checking in one of these preferred sources compiled by ALCTS – CaMMS for proposing new LCGFT terms, rather than just adding
670 _ _ $a @OpOnions, January 19th, 2016: $b (he said he loves ‘Those kinda movies with a single location and small cast and usually a bad twist’)

 

 

Citation of Sources J 162

Maybe it’s just me, but it strikes me odd that they’re including in the LCGFT memos how to record citations from telephone calls and email correspondence. Since we’re not recording info on persons/families/corporate bodies, what kind of info do they expect we’re going to be finding out from these phone calls and emails that aren’t found in the MANY reference sources?

Hey Nancy, can you confirm your date of birth for disambiguation?

Form of Authorized Genre/Form Term J 180

Use natural language, this means:

  • Terrible films
  • not Films, Terrible
  • Inscrutable poetry
  • not Poetry, Inscrutable

 

 

Broader Term References J 186

“Orphan” terms – terms having no BT – are prohibited in LCGFT, except for the topmost term in each hierarchy (e.g., Instructional and educational works; Law materials; Motion pictures).

So make sure to have a  BT in mind when proposing a term. If there’s really no decent BT, congrats you’ve discovered a heretofore unknown facet! Go propose the  BT you wish existed while you’re at it!

I’m also excited to have specific memos dealing with subjects! That’s right, just like in the SHM, and that’s also right…I get excited by memos.
Tina is also all about those memos
Right now those subject-specific memos are:
  • Legislation and Legislative Histories
  • Literature
  • Moving Images
  • Music (coming soon!)
  • Radio Programs

Now having just checked, as of press-time the relevant memos in the SHM which previously covered these as genre/form terms still exist. But presumably some time after the LCGFT manual leaves ‘draft’ status, they’ll remove those redundant SHM memos.

 

 

Moving Images J 240

(not a joke) I really appreciate the clarifications provided for “films for the hearing impaired” both that it refers to intent, not just any subtitling, and the reason “video recordings” is also in the vocabulary.
That has come up very often in discussions both at work and on list-servs, so it’s not see it addressed. Same goes for the specification in the background section that “films” does not just refer to “motion picture film” but any moving-image on any medium.
So that’s that, eh? Pretty glad to have some formal documentation to point to!

 

 

P.S. While checking the SHM for those now redundant memos, I bumped into this bizarre bit from Moving Image Genre/Form Terms H 1913  2.b
The context is: check LCSH before proposing a new genre/form term, and if that term exists in the former, use it for the latter:
Example: The work in hand is a film made by a child. The topical term Dystopian films exists in LCSH and can be proposed for use as a genre/form term.
So…I’m pretty sure they meant Films by children? Unless this is some weird burn by LCSH that all “Dystopian films” are amateurish as though made by a child. I don’t know.

Up to date Headings

Original Post

I saw this tweet a few days ago, and thought to myself — challenge accepted!

Here’s a very up-to-date and comprehensive subject heading guide for queer folks in the LCSH/LCGFT/LCDGT

If all you want is the link, have at it. If you’re interested in a bit more of the ways and means and hows — here’s more of that:

  1. I went to id.loc.gov and searched the following terms:
    1. Sexual minorities (and minority), queer, lesbian, gay, gender, orientation, intersex, transgender, transexual, and bisexual.
  2. Downloaded each relevant record (some hits with those terms were not) as RDF/XML (MADS and SKOS)
  3. Created a master RDF/XML file, available for your perusal, here
  4. Wrote an XSLT to make this (Class Web inspired) visual display, available for your perusal, here

Update 2017-06-30

  • Male homosexuality in the theater

Came from new LCSH list 1705


Update 2017-03-18

  • Intersex people [LCDGT]
  • Parents of transgender people [LCDGT]
  • Conversion therapy patients [LCDGT]

So these three are actually older LCDGT headings, but id.loc.gov hadn’t been updating for months and months! I emailed Janis Young and she got it sorted out, so I was finally able to add these back-catalog headings. Many thanks to her.


Update 2017-01-03

  • Museums and sexual minorities
  • Sexual minorities’ writings, Australian
  • Gay actors–United States

First two came from new LCSH: List 1611, the third I just noticed!


Update 2016-10-27

  • Neopagan gays
  • Stonewall National Monument (New York, N.Y.)
  • Hispanic American gay men
  • Hispanic American bisexual men
  • Bisexuality and education
  • Bisexual men–Relations with women

all came from new LCSH: List 1609


Update 2016-09-20

  • Gay musicologists

Natch, came from new LCSHList 1608


Update 2016-08-28

  • Discrimination against intersex people
  • Female-to-male transsexuals in art
  • Intersex people [updated]

That last one, Intersex people, had already been in LCSH, but they added a couple new UFs, so I updated mine.

As per uzh, they came from new LCSHList 1607


Update 2016-07-21

  • Asexual people
  • Asexuality (Sexual orientation)
  • Gay detectives

All three came from the newest LCSH: List 1606


Update 2016-06-11

  • Cisgender people
  • African American sexual minorities
  • African American bisexual women

All three came from the newest LCSH: List 1605


Update 2016-05-23

  • Parents of transgender children
  • Same-sex marriage (Islamic law)
  • Sexual minorities (Islamic law)
  • Drag shows

Drag shows is another Alex found, and the other three are from the newest LCSH: List 1604


Update 2016-05-13

Look, I made it ma! These are newly added headings that I found myself — totally missed ’em, but they’re in there now.

  • Conflict of laws–Same-sex marriage
  • Children of same-sex parents
  • Same-sex marriage in literature
  • Same-sex parents
  • Same-sex marriage in art
  • Same-sex marriage–Law and legislation–United States
  • Same-sex marriage–Religious aspects
  • Same-sex marriage–Law and legislation
  • Same-sex marriage–United States
  • Same-sex marriage–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]
  • Same-sex marriage–Religious aspects–Baptists, [Catholic Church, etc.]

Update 2016-05-06

Alex pointed me towards ‘Polari’ another good term I was missing, but I then realized that it was actually an NT of a term already on my list ‘Gay men–Language’. So I added to my error checkers a little code to spit out to any NT that isn’t on my list. By my reckoning, a given BT may not necessarily need to be on the list itself (e.g. ‘Bisexual parents’ has a BT of ‘Parents’) but every NT should be on the list.

So to that end, I also ended up adding:

  • Polari
  • African American bisexuals
  • Pacific Islander American bisexuals
  • Asian American bisexuals
  • Transvestites
  • Leather bars

Update 2016-05-04

Frankly, everyone who isn’t Alex is doing a real bad job of identifying ones I’ve missed!

  • Handkerchief codes
  • Male impersonators
  • Male impersonators in motion pictures
  • Female impersonators
  • Female impersonators in motion pictures
  • Female impersonators on television
  • Homomonument (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • Sexual orientation in art
  • Stonewall Riots, New York, N.Y., 1969
  • Androgyny (Psychology) in literature
  • Androgyny (Psychology)
  • Androgyny (Psychology) in art
  • Androgyny (Psychology)–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]
  • Androgyny (Psychology)–Religious aspects

Update 2016-05-03

Another set of missed headings, courtesy of trusty Alex

  • Homophobia in high schools
  • Homophobia in anthropology
  • Homophobia in psychoanalysis
  • Homophobia in children
  • Homophobia in sports
  • Homophobia in art
  • Homophobia in literature
  • Homophobia in schools
  • Homophobia in medicine
  • Homophobia in social work
  • Homophobia in child welfare
  • Homophobia in higher education
  • Homophobia in medical care
  • Homophobia in physical education
  • Homophobia in the military
  • Homophobia in the workplace
  • Homophobia in gerontology
  • Homophobia–United States
  • Homophobia–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]
  • Homophobia–Religious aspects
  • Homophobia–Religious aspects–Baptists, [Catholic Church, etc.]
  • Homophobia–Law and legislation
  • Homophobia–Press coverage

Update 2016-04-30

Thanks again to Alex for their continued noticing of headings I’ve missed! Let’s be real — I should’ve been using truncation when I did my initial searches. Rookie mistake, Ganin, rookie mistake.

I’ve now added:

  • Intersexuality in literature
  • Intersexuality in children
  • Intersexuality in art
  • Intersexuality–Mythology

Update 2016-04-22

Added “LGBT History Month” as it was in the most recent New LCSH


Update 2016-04-20

Big update!

So first off — a tremendous thank-you to my wonderful and observant colleague Alex who noticed something missing from my headings: ‘Astrology and homosexuality’. How could it be?! I’d been so careful! So let’s revisit my original process:

I searched Sexual minorities (and minority), queer, lesbian, gay, gender, orientation, intersex, transgender, transexual, and bisexual at id.loc.gov and grabbed every relevant term from the search. If any of those words appeared in a 150 or 450, I nabbed it.

But did you see what I didn’t search? That’s right — ‘Homosexuality’. In information retrieval terms this is precision and recall. I visually inspected each term to make sure they weren’t false positives (recall) but I wasn’t wide enough with my initial search terms to get perfect precision. I missed many relevant results.

Because this actually goes deeper than not having searched ‘homosexuality’. I searched ‘Homosexual’ and got still more that I needed. I searched ‘Bisexuality‘ and came up with one that wasn’t retrieved on a search for ‘Bisexual’. I searched ‘Lesbianism’ and found still more. So what’s important to note (for both me and others) is that these aren’t ALL the terms, it’s just the 862 I could find.

So if you’ve been maintaining your own list somewhere — and need to know which are the new terms, here they are:

  • Homosexuality
  • Homosexuality on radio
  • Homosexuality and art
  • Homosexuality and dance
  • Homosexuality and literature
  • Homosexuality and motion pictures
  • Homosexuality and the arts
  • Homosexuality and popular music L
  • Homosexuality and theater
  • Homosexuality and music
  • Astrology and homosexuality
  • Psychoanalysis and homosexuality
  • Male homosexuality in art
  • Socialism and homosexuality
  • Male homosexuality in literature
  • Homosexuality and architecture
  • Homosexuality and television
  • Homosexuality and education
  • Children and homosexuality
  • National socialism and homosexuality
  • Male homosexuality
  • Male homosexuality in motion pictures
  • Bible and homosexuality
  • Male homosexuality in music
  • Homosexuality in art
  • Homosexuality in music
  • Homosexuality in motion pictures
  • Homosexuality in dance
  • Homosexuality in video games
  • Homosexuality in opera
  • Homosexuality in literature
  • Homosexuality in the Bible
  • Homosexuality (Canon law)
  • Homosexuality in the theater
  • Homosexuality in animals
  • Homosexuality in the workplace
  • Homosexuality–Bibliography
  • Homosexuality–Netherlands
  • Male homosexuality–Religious aspects
  • Homosexuality–Philosophy
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects–Judaism
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]
  • Homosexuality–Genetic aspects
  • Homosexuality and literature–Great Britain–History–19th century
  • Homosexuality–Literary collections
  • Homosexuality–Psychological aspects
  • Homosexuality–Social aspects
  • Homosexuality–Fiction
  • Homosexuality and literature–English-speaking countries
  • Homosexuality and literature–United States–History–20th century
  • Male homosexuality–Psychological aspects
  • Homosexuality–United States
  • Homosexuality–Biblical teaching
  • Homosexuality–Law and legislation–United States
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects–Catholic Church
  • Male homosexuality–Mythology
  • Homosexuality–History
  • Homosexuality–Periodicals
  • Male homosexuality–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects–Baptists, [Catholic Church, etc.]
  • Homosexuality–Moral and ethical aspects
  • Homosexuality and literature–France
  • Homosexuality–Great Britain
  • Homosexuality–Moral and ethical aspects
  • Homosexuality and education–United States
  • Homosexuality and literature–United States
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects–Christianity
  • Male homosexuality–United States
  • Homosexuality–Law and legislation
  • Homosexuality–Religious aspects
  • Homosexuality–Mythology
  • Homosexuality–Folklore
  • Male prostitution
  • Bisexuality
  • Lesbianism in motion pictures
  • Lesbianism in literature
  • Lesbianism on television
  • Lesbianism in art
  • Lesbianism in opera
  • Lesbianism–History
  • Lesbianism–Religious aspects–Baptists, [Catholic Church, etc.]
  • Lesbianism–United States
  • Lesbianism–History–To 500
  • Lesbianism–Religious aspects
  • Lesbianism–Religious aspects–Buddhism, [Christianity, etc.]

Update 2016-03-10

Added “Two-spirit people in literature” as it was in the most recent New LCSH


Update 2016-02-20

  • Added two more terms (as they were in the most recent New LCSH)
    • Sexual minority veterans
    • Gay veterans
  • Updated the BT for transgender veterans, to Sexual minority veterans (as per New LCSH)

In so doing, I discovered a mistake! There were about 25 or so subject headings which did not have an attribute of @rdf:about in the madsrdf:Topic of madsrdf:hasBroaderAuthority. Without this attribute, the link constructed in the BT wouldn’t work. I manually went through and added those attributes, so you may cease your panicking.


Update 2016-01-01

Changed the links to its permanent home at my new website


Update: 2015-11-21

  • I finished all the additional 10 pages (about 200 terms!) under “Gay” – and also added any term which had an RT in this list, but the term itself wasn’t on the list. (if that made sense…)
  • I added the ‘May Subd Geog’ to each term that can be, and also ‘Former heading’ to those UFs which are formerly authorized headings, rather than standard variant labels.
  • I added a bit of statistical info to the beginning

Couple other notes [from original posting]

  • I decided to code it so that if the BT/NTs were in this list, they’d be anchor links, but if they weren’t it’d take you to their record at id.loc.gov
  • When you click an anchor, I wrote in a yellow highlighting effect, I like it, what do you think?
  • I didn’t display the “Subd Geog” status, do folks want that? It’s easy enough to add in, all the data is still there
  • I made the un-authorized forms italics to help them stand back a bit, whereas Class Web has them normal-style. Thoughts?

I’d love to hear feedback!

  • is this useful for anyone?
  • Any terms I missed
  • Any terms I should’ve avoided? (while obviously side-stepping the fact that many of these terms aren’t very good, they’re the ones in the vocabulary at the moment)

N.B. I’m still missing about 10 pages of various Gay [profession] but I’ll finish them up soon (there are TONS of these…). I think that there’s enough here that you’ll get the idea