[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cypherpunks
Subject:    Re: how to best organise a large community "important" books library?
From:       Zenaan Harkness <zen () freedbms ! net>
Date:       2017-05-28 6:35:55
Message-ID: 20170528063555.GA21407 () x220-a02
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:42:18PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 05/27/2017 08:07 PM, Razer wrote:
> > You're discussing books. It doesn't matter if they're paper or PDF or
> > DocX. The assumption is you want to categorize them by their CONTENT
> > which is what the LoC and Dewey Decimal system do.
> 
> And now that I look again, LoC is probably a better system for this
> purpose, if for the only reason the Dewey system is supposed to be
> licensed by libraries using it.
> 
> Yes, it's weird to group geography, anthropology, and recreation under
> one main category, but I'm not sure there's a better place for it under
> the other broad categories. It's much the same problem as the
> shortcomings of the original Encyclopedia of Chess Openings scheme of
> classifying chess openings has started to show its limitations, with a
> lot of codes being devoted to openings no longer played and a lot of
> lines of common openings being stuck under the exact same code. Thus the
> reason for the unofficial "Scid extensions" etc.
> 
> If neither LoC nor (a bootleg use of) Dewey fit your needs, there's
> always the option of rolling your own.

That's the point.

Digitally, we have just one set of "GUID"-addressed content, and as
many hierarchies/indicies on top, which points to that content.

Just like git.

I still hopeful this seems really obvious by now ..
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]