At 2:25 AM -0500 07-21-1997, Jon Knight wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, John A. Kunze wrote:
>> I think it's very illuminating to ask the question,
>>
>> "if we could only define 2 Resource Types, what would they be?"
>>
>> This really forces the question, "what's the single most important
>> Type discrimination needed for resource discovery?"
>
>How about the classic Fiction and Non-Fiction. Many paper libraries have
>just that split.
No, no, no, no, no! How dare we do that kind of thing? Besides, since
most of the material we will be dealing with are webpages dealing with
information (be it personal, or corporate), most webpages would want
themselves to be "non-fiction". Certainly if they want to seem credible,
anyway. :-) And it raises important philosophical questions, such as,
"Should Rush Limbaugh's site be considered fiction, or non-fiction?" ;-7
This sort of division also has nothing, really, to do with resource-types.
"Fiction" or "Non-Fiction" refers to the subject more than it does the kind
of content it is.
I *like* the current suggestions as they stand. If they are not too
complicated for me, then they will not be too complicated for anyone.
Besides, they are possible *values* for the resource-type category, so it
doesn't matter if they are too complicated, since people can choose the
level of specification they want. It's not that big of a deal if people
have to scroll down when they're looking at the list of possible
resource-types in the final recommendation.
--------------------------------------------------------
[ Jordan Reiter ]
[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[ The universe got you involved." --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------
|