Bibliothek 2.0 und mehr

Letztes Jahr auf der IFLA habe ich noch gesagt das DDC und UDC aufpassen müssen, da das Web nach einem freien Klassifikationssystem “hungert” (siehe dazu Folie 18 meiner Präsentation). Heute kündigt Tim Spalding von Library Thing an, das er die Arbeit an einer solchen freien Klassifikation unterstützen wird: Die Open Shelves Classification (OSC). Dabei soll die Klassifikation die folgenden Bedigungen erfüllen:

* 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?

Nun sucht er nach 5 BibliothekarInnen, die das Projekt leiten. Man darf gespannt sein wie das Projekt sich entwickelt. Ich kann mir duchaus auch vorstellen das es eine Kooperation mit Wikimedia geben wird. Vielleicht wird dies ja auch in dem Panel “Wikimedia and libraries” auf der Wikimania in Alexandria diskutiert.

Verwandte Artikel:

• Keine(r)