Yann Forget wrote:
> This discussion is very interesting. I would like to make a summary, so
> that we can go further.
>
> 1. A database of all books ever published is one of the thing
>still missing.
No, no, no, this is *not* missing. This is exactly the scope of
OpenLibrary. Just as Wiki
David Goodman wrote:
> The problem is extraordinarily complex. A database of all "books"
> (and other media) ever published is beyond the joint capabilities of
> everyone interested. There are intermediate entities between "books"
> and "works", and important subordinate entities, such as "artic
Yes, i think they are quite capable of doing it, & should take the
primary responsibility. What I think they are not capable of is
extending it to every published book in the world.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Va
(top-posting unravelled)
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM, David Goodman wrote:
>>> The training is typically an apprenticeship under the senior
>>> cataloging librarians.
>>
>> To my re
Exactly. That is why Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for this
project. It lacks sufficient stability. I think Wikipedia should go on
being what it is, an almost completely open place,and projects which
need disciplined long term expertise should be organized separately.
Wikipedia is a wonderful
> The training is typically an apprenticeship under the senior...
To my regret training/apprenticeship does not fit to "everyone
can...", "be bold!" set of wikimedia slogans/motto.
As to me I would stand behind (vote for) training and apprenticeship.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM, David Goodm
The training is typically an apprenticeship under the senior
cataloging librarians.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> DGG, I appreciate your points. Would we be so motivated by this
> thread if it weren
DGG, I appreciate your points. Would we be so motivated by this
thread if it weren't a complex problem?
The fact that all of this is quite new, and that there are so many
unknowns and gray areas, actually makes me consider it more likely
that a body of wikimedians, experienced with their own form
Yann & Sam
The problem is extraordinarily complex. A database of all "books"
(and other media) ever published is beyond the joint capabilities of
everyone interested. There are intermediate entities between "books"
and "works", and important subordinate entities, such as "article" ,
"chapter" ,
Hello,
This discussion is very interesting. I would like to make a summary, so
that we can go further.
1. A database of all books ever published is one of the thing still missing.
2. This needs massive collaboration by thousands of volunteers, so a
wiki might be appropriate, however...
3. The dat
Lars,
I think we agree on what needs to happen. The only thing I am not
sure of is where you would like to see the work take place. I have
raised versions of this issue with the Open Library list, which I copy
again here (along with the people I know who work on that fine project
- hello, Peter
11 matches
Mail list logo
