Core Subject Analysis Committee Public Space

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

Sasha,

I think this charge accurately captures the discussion we had in the meeting. I don't have any suggestions for revisions. Thank you for drafting this charge, and thank you again for volunteering to serve as chair for this group!

R

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

Hi Sasha:

Thanks for taking this on! I agree with Rebecca--I think the charge you laid out captured the various potential options being bandied about during the SAC meeting.

The only thing I can think of that's not here is whether other subfields likely to be discontinued by LC should also be considered at this time, or not. In other words, will the working group just be trying to protect $v viability at this time? Or, given LC's frequent hints that other subfields will likely also get the axe, should those be taken into account, as well?

(Here are a few of those sizeable hints from LC. See, for example, Melanie Polutta's presentation at PCC OpCo in May 2024, with slides saying things like "Eliminate almost all free-floating subdivisions." Or Amy Phillips' and Dorie Kurtz's 2025 article on LCGFT, where they said "The systematic elimination of subdivisions from LCSH will be a lengthy and complicated challenge faced by PTCP." [conclusion].  There's more, but these will suffice for now.)

That might expand the scope quite a bit, though. Thoughts?

Best,

Deborah

Sasha,

I think this charge accurately captures the discussion we had in the meeting. I don't have any suggestions for revisions. Thank you for drafting this charge, and thank you again for volunteering to serve as chair for this group!

R

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

Hi Deborah,

Thanks so much for your comments and for providing sources that might point to a full discontinuation of subdivisions.  Those are convincing arguements and, while it does expand the scope considerably, I think it's worthwhile to look at our options for other subdivisions now before we're caught off guard again.

My revised charge for the, now titled, Form Subdivision Continuity Working Group:

Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

Hi Sasha:

Thanks for taking this on! I agree with Rebecca--I think the charge you laid out captured the various potential options being bandied about during the SAC meeting.

The only thing I can think of that's not here is whether other subfields likely to be discontinued by LC should also be considered at this time, or not. In other words, will the working group just be trying to protect $v viability at this time? Or, given LC's frequent hints that other subfields will likely also get the axe, should those be taken into account, as well?

(Here are a few of those sizeable hints from LC. See, for example, Melanie Polutta's presentation at PCC OpCo in May 2024, with slides saying things like "Eliminate almost all free-floating subdivisions." Or Amy Phillips' and Dorie Kurtz's 2025 article on LCGFT, where they said "The systematic elimination of subdivisions from LCSH will be a lengthy and complicated challenge faced by PTCP." [conclusion].  There's more, but these will suffice for now.)

That might expand the scope quite a bit, though. Thoughts?

Best,

Deborah

Sasha,

I think this charge accurately captures the discussion we had in the meeting. I don't have any suggestions for revisions. Thank you for drafting this charge, and thank you again for volunteering to serve as chair for this group!

R

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

------------------------------
Sasha Frizzell
Catalog / Metadata Management Librarian
Binghamton University
She/Her/Hers,They/Them/Theirs
------------------------------

Hi Sasha, I'm a member of ALA CORE, Metadata and Collections subdivision, but I'm not a member of SAC. Volunteers were accepted for the $v Working Group, and I have been serving on it. Are non-SAC members allowed to volunteer for the new Constituency Working Group? I have been cataloging for over 10 years at a small university and recently joined a medium-sized academic library as the Metadata and Cataloging Librarian, Faculty with tenure track. But this is my first experience with serving on national committees. Thank you, Rebecca R. Daly, Northern Michigan University

redaly@nmu.edu

------------------------------
Rebecca Daly
Metadata and Cataloging Librarian
Northern Michigan University
She/They

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 05, 2026 02:28 PM
From: Sasha Frizzell
Subject: Draft - Form Subdivision ($v) Continuity Working Group

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

------------------------------
Sasha Frizzell
Catalog / Metadata Management Librarian
Binghamton University
She/Her/Hers,They/Them/Theirs
------------------------------

Thanks so much for your interest, Rebecca! Non-SAC members will absolutely be invited and encouraged to join the working group once it's established. We're in the final stages of approving the group in the private SAC Connect space, and once we have the green light, I'll be circulating a call for volunteers far and wide.  I hope we're able to find people with experience from institutions of all sizes and from public, academic, and special libraries to ensure we investigate all possible angles. Your background sounds like exactly the kind of experience we're hoping to include.

Hi Sasha, I'm a member of ALA CORE, Metadata and Collections subdivision, but I'm not a member of SAC. Volunteers were accepted for the $v Working Group, and I have been serving on it. Are non-SAC members allowed to volunteer for the new Constituency Working Group? I have been cataloging for over 10 years at a small university and recently joined a medium-sized academic library as the Metadata and Cataloging Librarian, Faculty with tenure track. But this is my first experience with serving on national committees. Thank you, Rebecca R. Daly, Northern Michigan University

redaly@nmu.edu

------------------------------
Rebecca Daly
Metadata and Cataloging Librarian
Northern Michigan University
She/They

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 05, 2026 02:28 PM
From: Sasha Frizzell
Subject: Draft - Form Subdivision ($v) Continuity Working Group

Based on our SAC meetings, there seemed to be strong support for starting a working group to identify a pathway to sustain the user benefits of using $v subdivisions in LCSH. There was a lot of discussion about possible ways to do that, but deciding the pathway forward seemed to rely on library infrastructure's ability to handle a pivot in how those subdivisions are maintained. 

Since we couldn't discuss a possible charge during the meeting, I wanted to post a draft here in Connect to give folks time to provide feedback. I tried to capture the major themes of the discussion, but please let me know if I missed or misunderstood something. I would appreciate if you could make comments before Friday, March 13th, so we can keep moving the work forward. 

Draft charge: Examine the technical feasibility of maintaining discontinued Library of Congress form subdivisions ($v) within current library infrastructures, either by sustaining a fork of LCSH subdivisions by a non-LC body, by adopting a non-LC alternative vocabulary, or by working with vendors to retain and maintain records with the subfields pending a long-term resolution. The group will conduct a vendor capability assessment with OCLC and ILS vendors and review existing implementations of alternative or forked vocabularies. Findings will be weighed against resource requirements and implementation burden, and the group will present a comparative assessment of each pathway's feasibility to the committee.

------------------------------
Sasha Frizzell
Catalog / Metadata Management Librarian
Binghamton University
She/Her/Hers,They/Them/Theirs
------------------------------