Tim Spalding wrote:
> I think there's a sort of misplaced Platonism in this concept. (This
> is also my problem with FRBR.) There is no "Price and Prejudice" in
> the sky, only copies situated in the real world.
I find it useful to think of FRBR in terms of set theory to get away
from this 'misplaced Platonism'. (This was/is Elaine Svenonius's
pre-FRBR suggestion). A work can be understood as the set of all
manifestations. (Well, really, work is a set of all relevant
expressions, expression is a set of all relevant manifestations,
manifestation is a set of relevant all items). ---it's of course only
the item that exists physically in the real world, the rest are
abstractions. But abstractions can be very useful.
The FRBR model allows us to say that some attributes belong to these
_sets_. There is no "price and prejudice in the sky", but there are some
attributes (and tags) that apply to the entire set of items belonging to
"Pride and Prejudice"; others that belong only to the entire set of
items representing a particular expression of "Price and Prejudice";
others that belong only to the entire set of items representing a
particular manifestation---and others applying only to a particular item
(or item(s) that do not comprise the entire manifestation set).
I think this is a very useful model, even though all the entities but
"item" are abstract. I agree that I don't like the "platonistic"
connotations, but you can avoid them by thinking in terms of set theory.
Jonathan
> "At mum's house" and
> "Victorian" may divide alone item/work, but what about "English
> class"? (The latter is very personal, but the physicality isn't
> important--maybe you lost your copy and got a new one.) Ultimately,
> all tags, even subject ones, are about how we see the world. That how
> we see the world individually "rolls up" into some larger,
> transferable meaning is only surprising if you don't realize it's how
> everything else--excluding marooned sailors--also works.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 2/23/07, HAZEL Margaret E <margaret.e.hazel_at_ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>> I don't know, I'd be interested to know what individuals consider
>> "comfort books", personally. Though I do agree that where it is in the
>> house, or the fact that the main character reminds you of an ex, ought
>> to be personal.
>> -Margaret
>>
>> Margaret E. Hazel
>> Eugene Public Library
>> Eugene, OR
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Kaplan
>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:24 AM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Book tagging: Amazon and LibraryThing
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Tim Spalding wrote:
>> > >Social tagging:
>> >
>> > This is a big and interesting topic. Here's $.02.
>> >
>> > There's a balance between selfish and altruistic, and some gradients
>> > in between, like when a member of a church tags things for the benefit
>>
>> > of a small group. There is also, if not an incentive to tag
>> > altruistically, something of a desire not to appear a fool. I see this
>>
>> > on LT all the time. Everyone's tags are public, so people are
>> > conscious to note that that Ann Coulter book was a gift. Or, take my
>> > brother (please!), who tags his small collection of semi-erotica
>> > "sex!" Wink wink nudge nudge.
>>
>> This is actually a limitation in the current concept of social tagging,
>> to me. On LibraryThing, for example, I want to tag my books in a way
>> that will be useful to the larger social tagging
>> pool: "fiction", perhaps, or "cyberpunk". But I also want to tag them in
>> ways which will be useful to me: "gift from mum", "on the shelf in the
>> dining room", "chewed on by a cat". Out of all of those, I can only see
>> "gift from mum" potentially being something which adds to the social
>> tagging pool ("look, everybody's copies of _How to Become a Better
>> Daughter in 90 Days_ is tagged 'gift from mum' or some variant!"). But
>> certainly all of those tags in the second set are what I would consider
>> to be private. Nobody else's business but mine. Where books are laid out
>> in my house, personal information about provenance or condition,
>> statements about what they mean to me ("comfort book", for example).
>>
>> So because social tagging as a concept is social, it's designed as
>> public. And therefore, because I desire to keep certain information
>> private, I can't use it for personal cataloging.
>> Since I can't make some tags private and viewable only to me, tags are
>> limited in their functionality as cataloging tools. For me.
>>
>> -Deborah
>> --
>> Deborah Kaplan
>> Digital Initiatives Librarian
>> Brandeis University
>>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 08:41:21 EST