Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
This thread is for setting up due dates, deadlines, and ToDo lists.
I propose that we set up a due date for new classification renditions, and probably some kind of organizational discussion and decision making processing for the organization.
Who, What, Where do we do things?
I would suggest that you start your own group for whatever you're trying to do here, rather than hijacking Tim's. The OSC as Tim conceived it is currently dormant and probably dead, true, but it would be far less confusing for all concerned if you start a new group (and post here for anyone interested) rather than just suggesting that what you're doing is the same thing.
Please stay on the rules of the thread - this is a Schedules thread complaints can be better addressed in the Disciplinary thread.
With all due respect, lunaphiles, you don't get to dictate rules to me or anyone else about what we can say in Talk, so long as we're within the TOS.
I would also say that as a methodology for encouraging and facilitating user collaboration it stinks. It is too authoritarian, not nearly open enough for me.
I absolutely agree; given that one of the main reasons for the failure of the original OSC was the top-down approach taken by laena et al, this seems to be doomed from the start.
Yes, it is doomed. Notice his library is empty? The only groups he belongs to are the ones he wants to run.
I am very aware that my leadership is difficult, but there is no other way about it - if there were, you would be pursuing it. I know what I am talking about - I have spent three years deliberating and devising a classification system that, other than being open-source, will meet your expectations of being intuitive for the casual browser as well as the professional librarian.
Your belief that a system can be devised by some means of "critical mass" of people working on the system in concert, is just not going to happen. The devising of the "top-categories" requires the discipline of a single mind deliberating the subjects, because the process of deliberating requires the ability to change one's understanding of subjects and reorganizing those subjects to meet the specifications of the newly devised collation. And that cannot be done in a collaborative manner - it is too much changing going on.
I have read the threads, and Laena, gave up because you guys could not make up your minds on anything.
The only way you are going to get anywhere on this is when someone presents a "top-categories" system, not just a list, but a system that you all recognize as workable. Meeting the expectations of being intuitive.
So, other than presenting individual renderings of "top-category" systems for group critiques - you will not get anywhere as far as pursuing the goal of devising a system.
Your failure to deliberate and devise a system is some type of proof that copyright protection is inherent of classification - it is not the same thing as software - it is a different "animal."
My system is incomplete, but it is further along then anything you guys have. I am worn out mentally from all the deliberations I have performed, and I am going to present it for further development by specialists in the specific areas, but I want to retain copyright protection in order to maintain the integrity of the collation system - and collation is something you guys have not even mentioned anywhere in your discussions. You hardly know what you are talking about in classification if you do not discuss collation.
If you're building your own copyrighted classification system, good for you, but don't call it "open", and don't you DARE piggyback on the work that we've already done in good faith of open-ness.
Yeah, what do you think you're going to do about it if I do?
The only work you have completed is the subliminal understanding that your work was a waste of time - you do not have anything, otherwise you would be continuing it. You are waiting for someone to devise a system that will compel others to participate. The only thing you can do is call for entries to be evaluated - all those long threads about this, that, and the other, are moot - they don't mean anything.
You're right, Theo. You guys are doing a great job!
I really like the classification system you have so far - I'm able to do so much with it, and the libraries have been picking up on it too!
Yeah, what do you think you're going to do about it if I do?
You don't get to copyright other people's work. I would have zero compunctions about redistributing the work that people here have done in good faith, regardless of whether or not you claim copyright over it.
lunaphiles, I respectfully request that you remove my contribution to the OSC from your list and deliberations. It was given in good faith as part of the OSC discussions and I do not care to have it appropriated for another project. Thanks.
As an occasional participant in the original OSC effort, I've been watching this new activity with a curious interest. I finally figured out what was so fascinating. I'm witnessing a phenomenon I'd only read about, and am now seeing it play out as I watch.
And that phenomenon is, how different a set of events are remembered by the people who experienced it directly, versus the interpretations drawn by later people who read accounts of the events. Add to that how, in our modern internet environment we have the twist that the contemporary documentation of the events (i.e. the discussion threads on this site and associated web documents) actually compose the events themselves.
So, we have myself and a number of people who have recently spoken here, who participated in the original discussions to varying degree. Judging just from the listing of threads, and not re-reading any of them, the significant levels of activity died off around a year ago, in later 2009. My memories correlate well to things posted now by lorax, lquilter, andyl, and others. What they describe is what I remember. (And I can't fully express what a relief that is to me, given my family medical history :-P)
Then we have new LT member lunaphiles who says he's (she's? sorry, can't tell from just your writing) read through the not inconsiderable material that was built up, and comes to completely different conclusions as to why various things ended up the way they did.
From an academic viewpoint, I have to say thanks! I'd never gotten to see this before, and it's really interesting to watch.
And since all the thought and writing that we did last year resulted in nothing at all, (not anything complete, which no one debates, but nothing at all) I guess I don't have to worry about my few contributed words being misappropriated and mis-attributed either, do I?
I think my analysis is spot on - what final decisions were made?
Nothing is final, and no one except me in the past year has even attempted to pick up the ball of leadership. You guys don't know what to do. And, all I am telling you, from my expertise in the field is that your discussions mean nothing, because all that matters is that a classification system has to be produced in order to claim that anything has been accomplished. And any attempt to generate a new rendition pretty much moots any previous decisions - its a very complicated process. if you believe a system can be generated from the scraps of discussions then do it - show me what you got?
It's hilarious how Lorax talks about infringement of your open-source "work," yet infringing on the copyrighted BISAC is all you guys have done!
If you guys want to accomplish anything, the best thing for you to do is do as I put out there; and that is present your renditions as complete as possible and critique them and see if anybody is willing to contribute to furthering any particular renditions. That's all there is that can be done.
tardis - you had nothing of usefulness - you haven't even bothered to further it along. What have you been doing the past year - waiting for someone to pick up where you got lazy?
None of you have taken up the responsibility on your own to even try to accomplish what it is you thought you were working toward. Somebody has to do some work - who is that going to be?
Oh, and by the way, has Laena, or TimSpalding even given you a hint as to why they quit? Don't you think their input as to how such a project should be organized be worth anything to you?
Do yourselves a favor, and schedule a due date for rendition submissions. Eventually, I will present my rendition, but I would prefer that you prove yourselves worthy to critique it by presenting your renditions. I began work on my rendition in February of 2008, four months prior to TimSpalding's commencement of the OSC project, and it is four levels deep, and I am confident that you and many others will be interested in continuing its reach - you will recognize its systematics..
You seem to be assuming that there are people here who are still interested in working on some variation of this project at this time.
Lunaphiles makes many assumptions, without true knowledge of the people and events involved to back him/her up. One of which is that none of the participants have day jobs or lives. We all have priorities and sometimes we have to choose.
I wish you the best, lunaphiles, but I am too "lazy" to participate further.
I urge anyone distressed by lunaphiles' behavior to delete any substantive contributions made to the previous threads, lest they be stolen and copyrighted by lunaphiles. This is worse than laena.
I'm not sure it's a problem, as I don't think the LT fora extend into other dimensions. But your point is still well taken.
I wouldn't worry. Likely to be a troll or student with a "create your own classification" assignment. Too over-the-top to be real. The proposed top levels are at heart just variations on Colon Classification PMEST facets.
Absolutely, Day jobs, and the general disenchantment and disintegration of the community.
As for it being warmed over BISAC - I think that was driven more by the project leads. Most of us were strongly arguing cases which would have resulted in a very different classification scheme. Which just goes to show that lunaphiles hasn't comprehended the previous posts, if they have read them at all.
21: I would NOT delete anything, as this site would be proof that you had prior art, should lunaphiles file a copyright and then attempt to sue (all sounds rather far fetched to me as there is no market for a new classification scheme so no money to be made from copyrighting one).
What I can't understand (speaking as somebody who followed the early development of OSC out of interest but didn't materially contribute) is why lunaphiles is bothering you/us/LT with all this. As he/she clearly thinks LT-ers are too stupid or too lazy to help in producing a classification why doesn't he/she take the library world by storm by producing his/her own classification totally outside LT. Why all these posts on LT? In #10 lunaphiles talks about copyrighting but my own interest was sparked partly by frustration at not having full access to current classifications. For me open source was the key and improvements on existing systems a side issue.
Agreed. And yet I get the feeling that lunaphiles expects us -- the very people whom he/she/it apparently deems unwilling and/or unable to contribute in any meaningful way -- to do a good deal of the work. (But that, of course, is only how I read it.)
Who would you like to be assigned to do the work?
Who would you like to be assigned to do the work?
With language like this, you make it sound like being a librarian automatically makes someone stupid, lazy, or something else unpleasant. This, of course, isn't the case. To be sure, there are almost certainly some librarians who are any number of things we don't like -- but aren't there such people in just about any group you can name?
As I understand the Open Shelves Classification, the point of it never had anything to do with allowing anyone-but-librarians to come up with some sort of classification scheme; it was to allow anyone who could be bothered to participate (librarian or non-librarian) help build a classification system that made sense to everyone.
(Edited for improved clarity.)
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.