Classify your heart out
Here it is, the revised list of top level categories. These have been vetted by all of us for awhile and it's time to start building subcategories. We've created threads in the Group to discuss the subcategories of each top level. Keep in mind that these need to be comprehensive, but not excessively granular. Take a look at this example of possible subcategories for PETS.
After more of the second levels are fleshed out, we plan to have a new classify-this feature to test out the classification system on books in LibraryThing.
Until then, classify and discuss!
After more of the second levels are fleshed out, we plan to have a new classify-this feature to test out the classification system on books in LibraryThing.
Until then, classify and discuss!
Labels: Open Shelves Classification, OSC
posted by laena at 2:27 PM
2 Comments:
I will have to work through these headings to determine how they work but i HAVE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THE SCOPE NOTES.
Under Biography & Autobiography, there is a note: Autobiography is a biography by the same person it is about. I would hope that anyone classifying books for a library would already know this.
Under Gardening -- growing fruits, vegetables, etc. Place Farming under Agriculture. How about commercial apple orchards, etc. Perhaps the Gardening scope note should indicate that it is for non-commercial grow operations?
General Knowledge includes works on libraries and archives. Their history? Their architecture? Their classification schemes? Really do not think that these are included in General Knowledge. Where do museums and other cultural or heritage institutions fit? I would put libraries there.
Health & Fitness: Place books about medicine under Science -- BUT -- under Science, medicine is not specifically included in the scope note, and I think it should be.
Languages & Linguistics: Place non-language dictionaries under their appropriate topic. The only kind of non-language dictionary I can think of would be one with pictures only. A more accurate statement might be: Put dictionaries on specific topics with the topic. i.e. statistics or science.
Somewhere in the group I missed the discussion about separating Economics from business, but I'm damn glad it happened. This is already more useful to me than BISAC. I've been tagging my books and books reviews with top level BISAC subjects. This is better. Though I'll probably come up with one word names for the ones "and" connecting them for simplicity sake.
Post a Comment
<< Home