IMSLP Forums

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:39 am**

I've recently wanted to scrap the current IMSLP cataloging system, and build a real cataloging system, but I don't know which one I can use? I'm thinking about the Library of Congress one, but I can't find the full text version... are there other cataloging systems in frequent use currently?

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:05 pm**

what exactly do you mean? split the "publisher" field into plate no, year, place etc?

if so, that would be nice! then we wouldn't have to update the pages like Peters manually.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:50 am**

The obvious questions to be answered here - hopefully by an actual music librarian, which I am not - is to what degree the existing library classification schemes already benefit the cataloguing of music specifically, and to what degree would they need to be supplemented or qualified to suit the sort of music project here. If there are advantages to one system versus another it would be helpful to know these prior to delving into the details; conversely it would seem silly to decide on one particular catalogue scheme before knowing how well-suited it would be to the materials.

Regards, PML

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:28 am**

I'll post a question on the MLA (Music Library Association) list if you like.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:52 pm**

Peter: That would be a nice idea, but it'd be rather hard to do :/ It has been proved (in the course of IMSLP's lifetime) to be rather hard to make people actually submit things in accordance with a guideline (after all we're not machines, so I sort of understand), unless the guideline is forced on them via the submission forms. The problem with what you are proposing would be that I'll have to list all the publishers in a selection box for it to work... otherwise all the different possibilities of writing "Edition Peters" (like "Edition Peter", "Peters", etc etc.) would break the system. So unfortunately this will have to stay manual for the time being. :/

What I meant was a classificiation system for work pages which is similar to a real library (call numbers etc).

PML: Well... the existing classification scheme is really extremely basic; people have pointed out the various inadequacies of it (some of the categories are way too broad). And so I want to move to a standard classification system, but I'm afraid of both the implementation of it (it takes a LOT of work), which I'll offer for other people who have the time to do, and the fact that the classification is actually *not* totally objective, and sometimes can be confusing. I've copied the first 30 or so numbers of the LCC:

Code: Select all

:Instrumental Music
::Solo Instruments
:::Organ
M0006 Misc. collections
::::Orig. compos.
:::::Coll.
M0007 General coll.
M0008 Sonatas
M0009 Suites et al.
M0010 Fugues w/wo preludes
M0011 Other (separate works only)
::::Arr.
M0012 Coll.
M0013 Sep. works
:::--
M0014 Organ books (accompaniments, incl. electric organ)
:::Harmonium
M0015 Misc. coll.
::::Orig. comp.
M0016 Coll.
M0017 Sep.
::::Arr.
M0018 Coll.
M0019 Sep.
:::Piano
M0020 Misc. Coll.
::::Orig. comp.
:::::Coll.
M0021 Coll. (2+ comp.er)
M0022 Coll. (1 comp.er)
M0023 Sonatas
M0024 Suites et al.
:::::Sing.
M0025 Gen.
M0026 Single hand pieces
M0027 Theme & Var.
M0028 Marches
::::::Dances
M0030 Gen.
M0031 In twos (2/4, 4/4, etc.)
M0032 In threes (3/4, 6/8, etc.)
::::Arr.
M0033 Gen. (incl. excerpts)

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think it might be too complex.

Carolus: That would be nice

I'm considering both the LCC and the BCMC (British Catalogue of Music Classification), and would like a little feedback from people who actually use the systems as to the simplicity and logicality of the systems. Of course I'm also open to other suggestions besides the two (maybe Dewey?).

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:03 pm**

Of course, one of the nice things about a digital library is that, since things don't actually rest on shelves, you can have them filed in more than one category. So, we don't have to use only one system. But, the more systems you add, the greater the complexity and the harder it is to maintain. *shrug*

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:13 pm**

This is why if this is going to be implemented it would be as an extension and *not* categories (i.e. it will not be part of the wiki system; it will be more like the rating system). The old categories will still be used, just that this will be added on top.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:08 pm**

Err, right, but the points are still valid: multiple categorization schemes could be implemented (if it were written generally enough, perhaps only a small amount of tweaking would be required), so you're not bound to any one scheme, and changing (or adding) schemes won't result in work lost to another scheme.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:25 pm**

Yep, that's exactly the idea

I'm thinking of doing "plug-in" like classification schemes, but I need one to start with lol. Unfortunately, most (or, I should say, all) classifications are paper-based, so I have to copy them to code, and that'd be a fair amount of work: in the case of the LCC it'd be around 1000 lines, and I can do about 100 lines per hour (my raw typing speed is very fast, but I have to summarize since the unsummarized version is >250 pages).

I think I didn't actually mean to discontinue the current cataloguing system when I said to scrap it in the first post... must be a slip of the tongue lol.

IMSLP Forums

Question

Question