Tim,
That's a huge P.S. there:
"PS: For what it's worth, I think the answer is a new system, built up
cooperatively. The goal of such a system should be to cluster things
that *users* see as alike and want to take out together, not to
educate them or push a particular understanding of the world (what
Clay Shirky calls "voodoo ontology.") I favor good (and open) subject
systems, not a late 19th-century shelving system libraries have to pay
to use."
_____________________________________
As I said in my last post:
"As I've recently expressed, there is "guaranteed serendipity" (by which I mean one can see all kinds of subject / interdisciplinary connections) due to the way LCSH subject headings are interconnected and now, in electronic catalogs, whose connections are incredibly easy to explore via weblinks. There is also a level of serendipity here - I may never have thought about these "facets" of linguistics unless they had been presented to me!"
Tim, first of all I must agree that using old versions of DDC or whatever would be a bad idea. Knowledge has progressed - but that is the point - we *know* it has progressed. We see the fruits of our understanding of the world everyday - from new medicines to space shuttles and beyond...
Now, I know this is list about the new catalog, but I think we need to get somewhat philosophical here: namely, in this day, should we consider the traditional educative role of libraries, *including their "tagging" and systems* or not?
Tim, I've read Shirkey's article about on how ontology is overrated and I'd love to engage people more on this. I would argue that while the LCC and LCSH are certainly influenced by Western understanding*s* of the world (after all, not one person did is responsible for these things), it still can help educate people as well who on their own might not think to see the connections between this and that thing. If you suggest a complete overhaul, and a new "bottom up" system, do you suspect that those connections that others have seen (the authors who wrote great, insightful books for example, and the people who read them and built upon what was true in them... and of course the discipline-specific people who classified them as best they could in accordance to the general shared understandings of experts in various fields) in the past are not *really there* in some sense?
I guess I believe in "elitism" in some sense. I believe that people not only can not let children view the world any way they want and I believe that there are some authorities who, in good "leather-footed journalist" style have been more curious and interested in this or that aspect of our world than most, have worked very hard to make contact with reality that's out there, and then have put together this or that enlightening and useful mental model (sometimes for scholarly and sometimes for popular consumption). I believe these people know far more about certain aspects of our world than I do. If I fail to submit to these various shared understandings of knowedge / what is true, I do so at my own peril. I may not believe that a document is relevant, but if it really is, I might be screwed. All of this "help" (I put it in quotes because is this not what is at contention here?) from these hard-working inquisitive people is made more readily available to me through librarians, who have made an effort to organize this for me while working in conjunction with these shared understandings of what we, humanity, know about the world. I think this all ties in with the idea of "common good" and why so many in the past thought offering public education to the less fortunate was a good thing.
I recommend the book "Sacred Stacks" as a good place to think about this more.
This does not mean that I must accept or believe everything. But if I am going to utterly reject something - whether a person, thing, idea, or even a systematic library system, it is good to know about the shared understanding that really exists (and has made a difference in this or that way in the world) and to deal with it in a thoughtful and respectful way, always appreciating the work and effort of those who have gone before us.
Respectfully,
Nathan
________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Tim Spalding
Sent: Fri 6/1/2007 7:25 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
>I remember Tim from LibraryThing was talking a while back about
creating a "Melvil" or "Dui" classification system based upon an out of
copyright version of Dewey (TM). Has anybody done any work along these
lines?
I never got anywhere with it. I moved over to the original Cutter,
then ditched both. Anyway, even if you get something out of copyright,
there's trademark to contend with.
Does anyone know about how Amazon subjects relate to BISAC? I
understand them to be an outgrowth of it, but I don't know how much
they're grown.
Tim
PS: For what it's worth, I think the answer is a new system, built up
cooperatively. The goal of such a system should be to cluster things
that *users* see as alike and want to take out together, not to
educate them or push a particular understanding of the world (what
Clay Shirky calls "voodoo ontology.") I favor good (and open) subject
systems, not a late 19th-century shelving system libraries have to pay
to use.
On 6/1/07, MULLEN Allen <Allen.MULLEN_at_ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
> Hi Jesse, I love seeing libraries using innovative tools by extending
> them in innovative ways! The website looks very "public-friendly" and
> it is great that a user can begin accessing the bibliographic collection
> using these headings right from the top level.
>
> How do you acquire the BISAC headings? Are they external (but linked)
> to MARC records or are they incorporated into MARC records?
>
> An interesting way to utilize faceting from Endeca. Wish I had more
> time to explore. Good luck with further development. I hope you'll
> update us when new features or approaches are added.
>
> Allen Mullen
> Eugene Public Library
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> >[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jesse Haro
> >Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:51 AM
> >To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> >Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Prof. Burke's wish list
> >
> >I was recently turned on to this listserv by Karen Schneider
> >and think these are all very interesting comments. I work as
> >the lead OPAC developer for the Phoenix Public Library and
> >have served as one of the primary drivers in changing the way
> >we interact with our customers online.
> >Although I serve a public audience, I think the implications
> >of the work we have done may apply in other areas.
> >
> >Phoenix recently completed an overhaul of our public website
> >with the integration of the Endeca search platform as our
> >primary search engine. As part of the project, we piloted the
> >use the Book Industry Study Group BISAC headings as a way to
> >compliment the marc record in our database for nonfiction
> >titles. The headings are visible from the home page under
> >"Browse Books". There's far more to this than I can write
> >here, but I would love to hear some feedback from the Library
> >community at large.
> >Our response so far from the public has been fairly positive.
> >You can see the results at:
> >
> >http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org <http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/>
> >
> >We are in the midst of integrating BISAC headings into our bib
> >database for fiction titles as well. The initial pilot
> >demonstrated an excellent way of mixing both the traditional
> >approach to navigating our collection via LCSH, with a more
> >retail friendly approach similar to BN, Borders, Amazon, etc.
> >We also discovered that BISAC headings give us far more
> >flexibility in targeting our catalog towards a specific
> >audience, (See
> >http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/business.jsp for an example).
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >Jesse Haro, Web Services Manager
> >Phoenix Public Library
> >602 495-7416
> >
>
Received on Sat Jun 02 2007 - 07:43:40 EDT