6 Comments

  1. Anonymous said:

    &gt;Julie Hankinson writes:<br /> &gt;<br /> &gt;&gt;&gt;Case in point: Books on the environment.<br /> &gt;<br /> &gt;&gt;&gt;Books on environmental theory are in GC. &gt; Books on environmental technology are in TD. &gt; Books on global warming are in QC. Books on<br />&gt; solar, wind, etc. are in TK. Books on<br />&gt; sustainable architecture are in TH. Do you<br />&gt; know how

    May 27, 2010
  2. How about multiple classifications for the same item? That is, if you are dealing with virtual materials,

    May 27, 2010
  3. Anonymous said:

    I entirely agree with you. I like the idea of the organizations responsible for classification schemes running web services rather like Delicious, where anyone could assign a classification from their scheme to any resource – book, web page, whatever, as long as it has a URI or some other reasonable means of identification. It could be seeded from a trawl of library catalogues and fed both by

    June 1, 2010
  4. It is done in some catalogs for physical materials already, although slightly different. Look at the record from this catalog of a consortium of libraries here in Rome, URBS. http://tinyurl.com/33nzhpv<br /><br />Each library has its own classification. Rethought and repurposed, something like this could be tremendously useful for different ways of browsing.

    June 1, 2010
  5. Anonymous said:

    That&#39;s a great catalogue. It&#39;s a very good reflection on those who put this system together. I think an essential step, though, is to abstract away from catalogues of any individual libraries or collections. That way there can be one place to go if you want to search or browse by (e.g.) DDC, and you wouldn&#39;t need to worry that there might be another library or consortium out there

    June 1, 2010
  6. Anonymous said:

    Oh – I should mention OCLC&#39;s DeweyBrowser (http://deweybrowser.oclc.org/ddcbrowser2/) which, while lacking a lot of the functionality that could be there, is the skeleton of the kind of interface I&#39;m talking about.<br /><br />Tom

    June 1, 2010

Comments are closed.