[Koha] [Fwd: [Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification]

[Iva Melinscak Zlodi]

Wow!
Zasto ovo nije vec zapoceto prije pet godina, i dovrseno, pa da mi samo 
primijenimo :(
iva

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification
Date: 	Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:55:57 -0400
From: 	Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com>
To: 	web4lib <web4lib at webjunction.org>



[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/