In message <[email protected]>, George Oates
<[email protected]> writes
>
>From my point of view though, it's actually very
>interesting to see the wide variety of subjects being added. And, it's also
>illuminating to see the remarkable variety within the seemingly
>controlled arena
>of LCSH too. Tiny differences in data entry/usage means a bloom of alternative
>descriptions. Before we attempt to create a self-referencing data entry UI for
>adding subjects, I'd like to encourage free-form description for a while. I
>expect we'll see some imitation/mirroring of "official" subject
>headings anyway,
>even in an uncontrolled environment.
I would favour "both and", rather than "either or", when it comes to
folksonomies and published classifications. Given that most of the OL
books I have stumbled across haven't contained any subject information
("Alack! The library doesn't know what this book is about. Can you help
describe it?"), wouldn't it be better than nothing to include LCSH (or
indeed DDC) information from the source MARC data? What's your policy
on this - replace these with the home-grown OL indexing framework?
Richard
--
Richard Light
_______________________________________________
Ol-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[email protected]
