[Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification

[Tim Spalding]

No, I think mostly DDC. DDC is largely used by public libraries. The
public and academic needs are different. And LCC is already free.

T

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> You say that the Open Shelves Classification system is intended to be a "crowdsourced replacement for the Dewey Decimal System."
>
> Don't you want it to be a replacement for library classification systems in general, and not just the DDC?
>
> Bernie Sloan
> Sora Associates
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com>
>> Subject: [Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification
>> To: "web4lib" <web4lib at webjunction.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 1:55 AM
>> [Apologies for cross-posting]
>>
>> I hereby invite you to help build the Open Shelves
>> Classification
>> (OSC), a free, "humble," modern, open-source,
>> crowdsourced replacement
>> for the Dewey Decimal System.
>>
>> I've been speaking of doing something like this for a
>> while, but I
>> think it's finally going to become a reality.
>> LibraryThing members are
>> into it. And after my ALA panel talk, a number of
>> catalogers expressed
>> interest. Best of all, one library director has signed on
>> as eager to
>> implement the system, when it comes available. Hey,
>> one's a start!
>>
>> ## Why it's necessary.
>>
>> The Dewey Decimal System(R) was great for its time, but
>> it's outlived
>> that. Libraries today should not be constrained by the
>> mental models
>> of the 1870s, doomed to tinker with an increasingly
>> irrelevant system.
>> Nor should they be forced into a proprietary
>> system--copyrighted,
>> trademarked and licensed by a single entity--expensive to
>> adopt and
>> encumbered by restrictions on publishing detailed schedules
>> or
>> coordinating necessary changes.
>>
>> In recent years, a number of efforts have been made to
>> discard Dewey
>> in favor of other systems, such as BISAC, the
>> "bookstore system." But
>> none have proved good enough for widespread adoption, and
>> license
>> issues remain.
>>
>> ## The call
>>
>> I am looking for 1-5 librarians willing to take leadership
>> on the
>> project. LibraryThing is willing to write the (fairly
>> minimal) code
>> necessary, but not to lead it.
>>
>> As leaders, you will be "in charge" of the
>> project only as a
>> facilitator and executor of a consensus. Like
>> Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales,
>> your influence will depend on listening to others and
>> exercising
>> minimal direct power.
>>
>> For a smart, newly-minted librarian, this could be a big
>> opportunity.
>> You won't be paid anything, but, hey, there's
>> probably a paper or two
>> in it, right?
>>
>> ## The vision
>>
>> The Open Shelves Classification should be:
>>
>> * Free. Free both to use and to change, with all schedules
>> and
>> assignments in the public domain and easily accessible in
>> bulk format.
>> Nothing other than common consent will keep the project at
>> LibraryThing. Indeed, success may well entail it leaving
>> the site
>> entirely.
>> * Modern. The system should map to current mental
>> models--knowing
>> these will eventually change, but learning from the ways
>> other systems
>> have and haven't grown, and hoping to remain useful for
>> some decades,
>> at least.
>> * Humble. No system--and least of all a two-dimensional
>> shelf
>> order--can get at "reality." The goal should be
>> to create a something
>> limited and humble--a "pretty good" system, a
>> "mostly obvious" system,
>> even a "better than the rest" system--that allows
>> library patrons to
>> browse a collection physically and with enjoyment.
>> * Collaboratively written. The OSC itself should be written
>> socially--slowly, with great care and testing--but
>> socially. (I
>> imagine doing this on the LibraryThing Wiki.)
>> * Collaboriately assigned. As each level of OSC is proposed
>> and
>> ratified, members will be invited to catalog
>> LibraryThing's books
>> according to it. (I imagine using LibraryThing's
>> fielded bibliographic
>> wiki, Common Knowledge.)
>>
>> I also favor:
>>
>> * Progressive development. I see members writing it
>> "level-by-level"
>> (DDC's classes, divisions, etc.), in a process of
>> discussion, schedule
>> proposals, adoption of a tenative schedule, collaborative
>> assignemnt
>> of a large number of books, statistical testing, more
>> discussion,
>> revision and "solidification."
>> * Public-library focus. LibraryThing members are not
>> predominantly
>> academics, and academic collections, being larger, are less
>> likely to
>> change to a new system. Also, academic collections mostly
>> use the
>> Library of Congress System, which is already in the public
>> domain.
>> * Statistical testing. To my knowledge, no classification
>> system has
>> ever been tested statistically as it was built. Yet there
>> are various
>> interesting ways of doing just that. For example, it would
>> be good to
>> see how a proposed shelf-order matches up against other
>> systems, like
>> DDC, LCC, LCSH and tagging. If a statistical cluster in one
>> of these
>> systems ends up dispersed in OSC, why?
>>
>> I have started a LibraryThing Group, "Build the Open
>> Shelves
>> Classication." Members are invited to join, and to
>> start working
>> through the basic decisions.
>>
>> The blog post:
>> http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2008/07/build-open-shelves-classification.php
>> The group:
>> http://www.librarything.com/groups/buildtheopenshelvesc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web4lib mailing list
>> Web4lib at webjunction.org
>> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>



-- 
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding