At 6:43 AM -0500 7/17/97, Stu Weibel wrote:
>Simon's suggestion that we adopt Bib-Tex categories for print-media
>categories is a winner in my estimation. So much so, I am moved to
>transcribe them below.
>Any documentalists out there know any strong objections or exceptions?
>>From page 145 of the LaTeX User Guide & Reference Manual
>Leslie Lamport, 1986
>
>article
>book
>booklet
>inBook
>inCollection
>inProceedings
>manual
>mastersThesis
>misc
>phdThesis
>proceedings
>techReport
>unpublished
Boy, this doesn't offer many options to anyone who *isn't* a scientist,
scholar, or librarian. What about all of the various media types out
there? What about personal items? My greatest objections with the list
above is that it would force about half of all content (particularly
homepages and other web materials) into the "misc" category, which seems
rather dangerous to me. I think a better place to look is at the various
types used by libraries in classification. Also, I would argue against a
hierarchy that contained, at its upper level, "document"--it's far too
vague, and most of the content is going to be documents anyway.
Additionally, there seems to be an emphasis on format, rather than type, in
the resource type examples--document.manuscript.autobiography, for example.
This provides severe limitations. What about autobiographys that are
recordings of the person? Are we to then create a category
recording.autobiography? Wouldn't it be more convenient to categorize
along the subject matter (in a general sense) and *then* the material it is
printed/recorded/imbued upon? For example:
novel.recording
novel.book
textbook.cdrom
On advantage is that it is very easy to track a document over media
conversions.
--------------------------------------------------------
[ 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. ]
--------------------------------------------------------
|