On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Chris Little <chris...@crosswire.org> wrote: > The categorization system is primarily concerned with presentation within a > frontend. E.g. a GenBook with category Bible would be treated/displayed as a > Bible (not that we've implemented this in .confs yet), an LD module with > type DailyDevotional would display mm.dd keys using localized date formats, > etc.
I don't think that one distinct module type handles all needs. Look for example at Bible Reading Planners vs. Daily Devotionals. It makes sense to say "a Bible reading planner is a Daily Devotional", and should be shown with a date, etc. It also makes sense to display it to the user as a reading planner, not a daily devotional, since that is what they are looking for. A reading planner also has things people want to do with it that are different from what you might want for a typical daily devotional (which presumably you just read). For example, we recently had a feature request for BPBible to allow checking off of a reading planner as you read through it in a year, a thing that doesn't seem likely for a "standard" daily devotional. How frontends display it is up to them, but I believe that in many cases the more information the better, and I don't think you can always fit a module into one rigid category with absolute certainty. > It seems like what you're talking about is subject specification, which we > deal with via the LCSH field (which is repeatable, though we've never done > so). I'm amenable to adding a CCELSH field (also repeatable) as well, for > CCEL subjects, since they are more focused on Christian literature. > > A lot of our material can also be found at CCEL or directly derives from > their material, so copying such entries over would be a bit of work but not > require much editorial insight. The LCSH values are, as ever, available via > the Library of Congress catalog website, catalog.loc.gov. I want to be able to specify arbitrary information about the module that suits me (not some kind of standardised thing that I would have to try and find for myself - can anyone tell I don't like standards?), including types of information that I think important but for whatever reason are not included in the conf file. Things like I suggested for the "Early Fathers" collection, and could suggest similarly for the multi-volume commentary sets you get, like the Cambridge Bible and the Speaker's Commentary. There is no doubt (in my mind, anyway) that such a tag makes sense, and there is equally no doubt that it is unlikely to be a standardised subject heading. I also think it is important for exploration of the library to allow finding of related works as I suggested, and this could be done much more easily if there are more associated tags. Jon _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
