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 ..
