How have you handled providing a work-set relationship in LT that is not
'binary'? Curious if there are any lessons for us there, if you figure
out anything creative. I can't think of a good solution offhand, it's
not trivial.
I think ultimately ANY model of reality inside software data structures
is going to be 'shoehorning reality into boxes'. That's just the nature
of the beast. The map is not the territory. Our task is to make the map
sufficiently good and flexible, to make sure we've got the right choice
of boxes to shoehorn things into, including setting up the framework for
future uses we can't think of now But there's no way to get reality
itself inside a database, it's always only going to be a model.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
>> However, what constitutes 'the same thing' depends on the need at hand. This
>> means requesting from a FRBRized display is inherently problematic --
>> particularly if the patron thinks s/he is requesting something specific in
>> mind, and doesn't realize that the requesting algorithm simply chooses the
>> most popular work, the one that's easiest to get, etc.
>>
>
> I think the great problem with FRBR is that it's binary. Pre-digital
> library systems were all binary, mostly because of physical
> limitations. So, something either is or isn't on the shelf, or part of
> the subject "Love Stories." Relationships between books aren't binary.
> Sometimes it simplifies things to make them binary—but I think most of
> the benefit is for the catalogers mind, not the users. Users can
> understand that books relate to each other in complicated, shaded
> ways.
>
> Case in point. LibraryThing's "Combiners!" group is convulsed by
> debate about LT's work system—a drawn out battle between lumpers and
> splitters, and between people who like my social conception and those
> who want work-set relationships exclusively based on content
> differences. The truth is, there is no truth. There's just what is
> more useful and what is least, and that depends on the data and the
> searcher. I know we need a better system—a better system, and other
> systems.
>
> Making a stab at how items relate to each other is great. But I fear
> that FRBR is ultimately another totalizing attempt to shoehorn reality
> into boxes. This will be a real problem as algorithms start to
> approach the same issue. I'd bet you that Google could already come up
> with a pretty nuanced, non-binary map of relationships between, say,
> all the editions of Whitman's poetry based on full text. Wouldn't that
> be fascinating? It might have some guesses, but the overall result
> would be richer than a FRBR model could represent.
>
> So, I submit that if the library world fixies on another standard
> rooted in the binary limitations of the physical world, it will miss
> the boat again.
>
> Tim
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 14:29:58 EST