Collection aboutness in OLAC

Defining aboutness of a collection is a challenge. From a philosophical point of view, this is even harder for collections in anthropological linguistics. These kinds of collections are not assembled for the sake of their "about-ness" but rather for the sake of their "is-ness". A collection in a museum might be about 19th century trains but such collections rarely contain the trains themselves. So, does this mean that linguistic collections are really about the people groups the speech is representing? and then the of-ness is the speech? Then linguists come along and write about the grammar of the language, and that is about the language? Often original stories will have an aboutness meaning which is never recorded in metadata. This needs to change.

This thought needs to be explored with MARC 655 $x and $v sub-fields. see:

see email:

Building a discourse server

pfaffman/discourse-doi-resolver <-- content in OLAC

Position conversations within the OLAC search space.

This might be a way forward to an OAI-PMH repo: another option is to use a query mechanism in the JSON api to get all threads and treat these threads as resources for description.

I wonder how many layers a tag-group can have...

Legal and privacy considerations:

Your Discourse forum and the GDPR

Import from other discourse instances:

Self-hosting, self-managed, hosted, serviced,


Discourse Hosting Plans and Pricing

Dedicated email:

Material Types in Library Science and OLAC Types

One of the frequent things I hear about OLAC is a critique of its Resource Type vocabulary. The OLAC application profile adds linguistics resource types in addition to DCMITypes and an unqualified DC type value. What I don't hear from these same cries for additional descriptive power is for a structured way to use any of the existing resource type vocabularies. Let me list a few:

It has been argued that the Dublin Core Type field is an example of a genre field. This may be true in some sense, but I have a tendency to think of it in terms of an interactivity type field; more of a modality field.