Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wupost!dranet!sean
From: sean@dranet.dra.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give it up, folks
Message-ID: <589.256420b1@dranet.dra.com>
Date: 17 Nov 89 21:16:00 GMT
References: <36339@apple.Apple.COM> <10119@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> <36343@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Nov11.002535.21243@world.std.com> <255F14A9.16035@ateng.com> <1989Nov15.160912.8148@world.std.com> <3969@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO
Lines: 55

In article <3969@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> In article <1989Nov15.160912.8148@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>> The Library of Congress probably has
>> hundreds of thousands of subject classifications and I haven't heard
>> anyone calling the nation's library systems useless.
> 
> Because most books are put into the right sections. In other words, the
> official subject divisions are easy to understand and widely respected.
> USENET groups don't work that way.

There are hundreds classification schemes in common use.  They have a big
advantage over USENET naming.  The other classification schemes are generally
applied AFTER the book (film, map, etc.) is written.  And then an 
"independent" cataloger can examine the material and classify it.  Authors
and publishers may be very good at what they do, but they often have their
own agendas.  But then again perhaps sci.acquaria will turn out to be the
most scientific of all the newsgroups (though there were many other issues
tied up in that one).

But most classification schemes share a common trait with USENET naming,
namely that somebody always thinks it is wrong.  For example, the LC subject
headings are often viewed as being obscure, and difficult to use so Hennapin
Library has come up with their own "clearer," "easier to use" subject headings.
Of course an individual USENET site could hack their software to display
whatever name they want to their users, so what is the issue about the name.

The issue, which other classification systems will be sharing with USENET soon,
is that the "selective dissemination of information" will become more tied
to the classification system.  SDI is the library equivalent of USENET's
distribution mechanism.  When more information is distributed by
classification, then I think that more disagreements over classification
will occur.

So I don't really think that LC, or Dewey, or anyone else has really
solved these problems either (they may not have them yet, but they haven't
solved them yet either).

I don't know that separating the distribution from the classification would
really help this problem (though on general principles I like it).  The
flamefests, and attempts to change the distribution to tunnel through
"recalcitrant, narrow-minded" choke points in the USENET distribution will
continue (although all main hierarchies seem to get a very good worldwide
distribution regardless).

They will flame, talk, post, discuss, etc wherever they believe that people
with those interests read.  The hierarchy the group is in doesn't really
make a difference to the quality of the participants, unless you restrict
the distribution to only "high quality" people.

But that's what mailing lists are for... (:-?)

--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dranet.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
  Affiliation given for purposes of identification, not representation