Robin writes:
> Uh-oh. I think we've had the discussion we're about to have
> about Jon's initial list of resource types, which makes sense
> if his list was drawn from the same source. With all due respect to
> Simon and Stu, this list appears to be a random grab-bag, mixing form
> of item and nature of content. (Perhaps it is skewed toward the kind
> of documents generally produced in TeX?)
>
...
>
> Let's go back to developing/discussing Roy's list, where high-level
> categories
>
> Document
> Image
> Sound
> Software
> Dataset
> Miscellaneous
>
> answer the fundamental "what?", and subcategories enumerate
> the nature of content as necessary.
>
OK, OK, I give... good thing we have real librarians on this list.
stu
|