how to best organise a large community "important" books library?

Razer g2s at
Sat May 27 18:07:28 PDT 2017

On 05/27/2017 01:08 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 06:33:42AM -0700, Razer wrote:
>> On 05/26/2017 11:11 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> The main bit I don't like about Library of Congress, Dewey and other
>>> "physical library" categorization schemes is that they are evidently
>>> "optimized" for physical storage, and so they arbitrarily group
>>> categories which are not directly related.
>> No they don't.
> Sure, you can say "G", the "Geography, Anthropology, and Recreation"
> is a category of related topics, but some people want these
> categories in separate categories, not in the same category.
> And then you can say "oh, but inside G you've got sub-categories" -
> well, that's the point - we don't have to limit our top level
> categories to 26 letters of the alphabet, in the world of file
> systems and folders.
> But we can do that as well.
> We can have multiple indices of different types, it's just digital
> after all.
> (May be there really is no physical correlation/ optimisation going
> on with LOC classification, if that's what you're trying to say -
> either way it's a wood for the trees on an irrelevant point.)

You're discussing books. It doesn't matter if they're paper or PDF or
DocX. The assumption is you want to categorize them by their CONTENT
which is what the LoC and Dewey Decimal system do.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list