Hi, We're actually going through the process of putting "exploded" LCSH from editions into the Work level as I speak. You can see progress here:
http://openlibrary.org/people/olbot I agree, it should be a "both" situation, and not an either/or, fwiw. Cheers, george Richard Light wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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]
