[Data-modeling] Library of Congress and Dewey Classifications

[Jeff Prucher]

Here are my current thinking on these classifications right now:

1) DDC and LCC properties should be non-unique, and should stay on "book
edition". (Even though Dewey doesn't uniquely map to editions, keeping at
the book edition level makes it easier to import data from MARC and
MARC-like sources, which don't collapse editions into individual books.) 

2) There is some interest in having at least the high-level codes as topics,
rather than strings, but we haven't come to any agreement about how this
might work. It seems that making EVERY possible Dewey or LoC classification
into a topic is not practical, and may get into copyright issues anyway. But
only making the 1000 three digit Dewey #s or however-many two-letter LoC
numbers doesn't really help Tim K. with his discovery of books on similar
topics. However, it could be used for Ed's proposed cross-mapping of
subjects, if such a thing turns out to be feasible.

Further thoughts? 

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com 
> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Ed Laurent
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:22 AM
> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Library of Congress and Dewey 
> Classifications
> 
> Understood. Maybe I was getting a little carried away. 
> However, querying a library for a particular book could 
> require knowledge of it's complete Dewey code and version 
> depending on how it is referenced by the library.
> 
> I guess my potentially useful point was that anyone's concept 
> of <subject topic> may differ from someone else's. Defining 
> and cross referencing similar subject ontologies (e.g., Dewey 
> versions, land cover classification systems, species 
> concepts) is therefore very important so that people can find 
> <other books on subject> even if the book topics are linked 
> to a subject only through a similar but different ontology. 
> This will likely require that categories or subject topics 
> (e.g., topics of "Book subject" type) are listed as topics of 
> a defined ontology type (see topics listed in Classification 
> system 
> <http://www.freebase.com/view/user/spatialed/default_domain/cl
> assification_system> ) and that the subject topics are cross 
> referenced to similar subject topics of different ontologies 
> (see Equals, Overlaps, Contains, and Contained by properties 
> of Classification code 
> <http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_do
> main/classification_code> ). This is one way that 
> "higher-order semantics" that Robert referred to in the 
> Events thread can be defined.
> 
> -Ed
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Prucher 
> <jeff at metaweb.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> 	
> 	> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf 
> Of Ed Laurent
> 	
> 	> I'm wondering how useful the browsing option of "All books in
> 	> Dewey Decimal 303" would be on a day-to-day basis compared to
> 	> "I'm looking for The Catcher in the Rye at my local library
> 	> and want to know where to find it". Is finding a book in your
> 	> local library an appropriate use of Freebase? It's not much
> 	> different than asking "I'm looking for car manufacturers in
> 	> my city and want to know where to find them".  That seems to
> 	> be appropriate.
> 	
> 	
> 	I'd say that "I'm looking for library branches in my 
> city" is more analogous
> 	to "I'm looking for car manufacturers in my city". 
> Finding a book in your
> 	local library is more akin to querying the current 
> stock of an auto-parts
> 	store. Since Freebase can never hope to be as good as 
> your local library's
> 	actual website in terms of being able to find out what 
> books they have, I
> 	don't think it's an appropriate use. What would be 
> appropriate, though, is
> 	to have a way either to query which libraries have a 
> particular item, or to
> 	query a specific library for an item. We don't 
> currently have this
> 	capability, but it would be very, very cool.
> 	
> 
> 
> 	> Freebase could be very useful for not just linking topics but
> 	> also for linking the ways they are categorized. As users
> 	> become more aware of the various ways that topics are
> 	> categorized and the reasons behind differences in systems
> 	> that define the categories (especially systems that are well
> 	> used and well defined) they should be able to develop more
> 	> and more comprehensive and mutually exclusive type properties
> 	> and topic attributes.
> 	
> 	
> 	This is a very good point, and well worth keeping in 
> mind as we deal not
> 	only with book data, but many other types of data as well.
> 	
> 	Jeff
> 	
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Data-modeling mailing list
> 	Data-modeling at freebase.com
> 	http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> 	
> 
> 
>