George Oates wrote: > 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.
I'm all for that - you don't want to be in the business of policing "subjects". Flat taxonomies beat hierarchical ones hands-down. > 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". Fair enough if it's a temporary hack. You could presumably provide the same functionality using the 'borrowing' metadata at some point in the future though? > 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 Looks interesting - bit of a long way to go for me though. Are the sessions/talks going to be recorded at all? Frankie > 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] _______________________________________________ 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]
