[Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification

[B.G. Sloan]

OK...thanks for the clarification.


--- On Wed, 7/9/08, Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com> wrote:

> From: Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com>
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification
> To: bgsloan2 at yahoo.com
> Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 5:17 PM
> 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