Oh, [ what a pleasant surprise!! ] well, how about you explain to me what a car is, and I'll explain to you how we sort the catalogues in Candlekeep, then?
[ book nerds book nerds BOOK NERDS!!! ]
Candlekeep is so much larger than the archives here, I don't know that it would be particularly useful to look to it as an example of how to sort a library without a "computer"... But nothing is ever improved by making assumptions. There might be something we could think of and present to the Archivist, if we put our heads together.
[tapping her chin, thinking out loud: ] Genre, or subject, and author is all well and good when each of those is clear-cut, but what about books written by more than one person? Or works that blend genres? Hm. There has to be a better way to sort this...
But Ennaris is going first, so maybe they'll get really into her thing. Abby already has comments for her; they could be here a while.)
I get what you mean, but I'd probably go with whoever is listed first on the book for what name to file under. Same with genre, I guess. Like if it was a... I dunno, a mystery-thriller, I'd go with the bigger theme.
(It's not perfect, but oh well.) And then you note somewhere that it has two genres, so you can always refer to the notes.
That works well for a smaller archive like ours, [ she concedes easily, ] but as our collection grows, so will the number of exceptions, and the number of notes. Such a list could eventually become too complicated for easy use.
Not to mention, what about books with no known title, or author? How do we distinguish between Ancient Alammari Scroll #1 and Ancient Alammari Scroll #57? Just for example, I mean, I don't even know if the ancient Alammari tribes had writing.
This must sound like I'm overcomplicating things, [ so at least she's self-aware? ] but I think they're problems worth thinking about! We want to minimize the work we'll have to do in the future.
[ "we", because obviously, if she's suggesting any work be done, she'll be assisting with doing it, even if it's not actually her job. ]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Oh, [ what a pleasant surprise!! ] well, how about you explain to me what a car is, and I'll explain to you how we sort the catalogues in Candlekeep, then?
[ book nerds book nerds BOOK NERDS!!! ]
Candlekeep is so much larger than the archives here, I don't know that it would be particularly useful to look to it as an example of how to sort a library without a "computer"... But nothing is ever improved by making assumptions. There might be something we could think of and present to the Archivist, if we put our heads together.
[tapping her chin, thinking out loud: ] Genre, or subject, and author is all well and good when each of those is clear-cut, but what about books written by more than one person? Or works that blend genres? Hm. There has to be a better way to sort this...
no subject
But Ennaris is going first, so maybe they'll get really into her thing. Abby already has comments for her; they could be here a while.)
I get what you mean, but I'd probably go with whoever is listed first on the book for what name to file under. Same with genre, I guess. Like if it was a... I dunno, a mystery-thriller, I'd go with the bigger theme.
(It's not perfect, but oh well.) And then you note somewhere that it has two genres, so you can always refer to the notes.
no subject
That works well for a smaller archive like ours, [ she concedes easily, ] but as our collection grows, so will the number of exceptions, and the number of notes. Such a list could eventually become too complicated for easy use.
Not to mention, what about books with no known title, or author? How do we distinguish between Ancient Alammari Scroll #1 and Ancient Alammari Scroll #57? Just for example, I mean, I don't even know if the ancient Alammari tribes had writing.
This must sound like I'm overcomplicating things, [ so at least she's self-aware? ] but I think they're problems worth thinking about! We want to minimize the work we'll have to do in the future.
[ "we", because obviously, if she's suggesting any work be done, she'll be assisting with doing it, even if it's not actually her job. ]