This week my cataloging professor, Jens-Erik Mai, assigned us to read, among other things, an article which he wrote several years ago entitled Deconstructing the Indexing Process.
In this article he discusses a lot of the problems with current indexing standards and theories. In reference to the ISO standard, he says:
Furthermore, neither of these standard guidelines provide help for the cataloger or indexer who wants to determine the subject content based on an analysis of the user's needs or potential needs. These guidelines approach the subject-indexing process as a bottom-up process, where the aim is to determine the subject of the document, and not the potential uses of the document.
I see two important points in this section. First of all, the end user is only hypothetically present in the indexing process. Secondly, it is really hard to define exactly how people understand what the subject of a work is.
The first point is probably the one which I find the hardest in cataloging and indexing. Last quarter we talked so much about users and user needs, and now the user is almost out of the picture. I almost feel as though the objective subject of a work (as expressed through whatever classification or subject heading it ends up with) hardly matters as long as it ends up in the hands of the user who needs it weeks, months, or years down the line. The problem is no knowing what they users are going to need. Although there can be user studies and such, the trend towards internationalization and standardization leaves less room for individual systems (i.e. libraries) to tailor indexing schemes to the needs of their own users. The flat fact is that customization is expensive, both in creation and in education. In the end, what serves the user better, standardization or customization?
As far as defining a subject goes, I'm also finding myself hard pressed to think of an exact way to explain exactly what the subject of a document is. I was taught in elementary school to read short passages of text and to identify what the subject of the passage is. This is meant to develop reading comprehension or something, but I wonder if this kind of exercise hasn't stifled my ability to think about other kinds of subject. I keep coming back to the idea that all that matters is that the user connects with the information, and that there are so many more aspects to the content of a work than its subject. What about describing the depth of analysis in a work? There are so many holes.