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

[Ivan Mihel]

Zato jer smo avangardni!!!!! :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Iva Melinscak Zlodi" <imelinsc at ffzg.hr>
To: <koha at mjesec.ffzg.hr>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: [Koha] [Fwd: [Web4lib] Build the Open Shelves Classification]


> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> Koha at mjesec.ffzg.hr
> http://mjesec.ffzg.hr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha