Library catalog discussion (moved from wiki)

[imslp]

This is moved from my talk page.

I've checked out the Class M classification schedule with additions and changes through 1992 and have been looking over it. After examining it, I am not sure that a strict adherance to the LoC classification is necessary or even desirable. The LoC classification is specifically suited to classifying publications, whereas we are only interested in classifying works. Thus, there is a great deal of numbers that will be left out (Monumental editions, collections, compilations, etc.). We can retain the classifications that we need, but simply ignore the numbers. I started something on my user page that shows what I'm talking about. (Unfortunately it's kind of hard to read, and I went into great detail, perhaps more than we is necessary). Another issue is when we should have a classification for transcriptions and arrangements. It seems unlikely that transcriptions and arrangements for instruments other than piano will recieve their own work page, so those numbers (i.e. 13, 44, 49, 54, etc.) should be left out. --Goldberg988 13:59, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I think that is a very good idea. I was originally thinking about tagging each file, but that's probably too much of a burden.

I think we should go with your suggestion Anyone else who has any comments feel free to post them

[Carolus]

A long time ago, I developed a classification system for a publisher (who no longer uses it) that was based strictly upon what voices and/or instruments were actually called for in the score. Goldberg is right about LC, they some even sometimes will assign a different class number based upon the physical format as opposed to the actual content. A set of parts for Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 2, for example, is musically eaxctly the same as the full score - it's merely a difference in format.

I'll look around and see if I can find the thing I came up with and e-mail to you.