Hi Frankie, > I'm all for esoteric, folksonomy-esque subjects like "criminal > masterminds of Victorian London", but it seems a bit hack-ish to use > them for arbitrary lists (would I be allowed "Frankie's fav books"?)
Negotiation and argument about classification (however esoteric or rubbery) seems to be the nature of the beast. I like to think of it as if we've borrowed the professional classification(s) available to us as a substrate to be built upon, imitated or reacted to. You're certainly allowed any subject you like. We're not going to get into the business of editorialising subjects. And, I suppose, since it's a wiki, if there is someone out there that does have a problem with it, it might be removed. Point taken though, about it being a bit hacky. We wanted a quick way to gather these titles into a presentable page that was useful to link to, rather than rely on people knowing what to search for, or only stumbling on OverDrive titles. Also found it curious to see what related subjects, publishing history, authors and publishers emerged from counting it as a "subject". Re: Merging Works Yes! Soon! It's definitely up there, but for the next 2 months, we're all going to be focussed on our annual October meeting, called Books in Browsers. There's a draft schedule online here, if you're interested: http://reading20.posterous.com/tentative-draft-bib10-schedule Cheers, george Frankie Roberto wrote: > Hi George, > > You wrote: > > We've begun warping subjects a little bit. Overdrive is an example > of an easy > way for us to group a whole bunch of titles together, in this case, > ebooks that > are available for loan through the OverDrive lending system. > > There are a few others: "protected DAISY", "accessible book", "new > york times > bestseller"... > > Even though there are rules associated with subject headings and > cataloging, I > think what we're seeing is that in practice, it seems quite > folksonomic in nature. > > > Hmm, I can see why you're going down this route (avoiding the whole > complex classification hierachy thing), but I think it's a bit > non-obvious to lump stuff that's not related to the actual content of > the book in with "Subjects". The OverDrive info seems to be already > captured elsewhere (via the "borrow" links), so is it really needed? > > I'm all for esoteric, folksonomy-esque subjects like "criminal > masterminds of Victorian London", but it seems a bit hack-ish to use > them for arbitrary lists (would I be allowed "Frankie's fav books"?) > > P.S When do we get to merge Works? Is that up next? More magic wands > please... :-) > > > -- > Frankie Roberto > Experience Designer, Rattle > 0114 2706977 > http://www.rattlecentral.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________ 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]
