Open Source Catalogue?

Hi folks!  While many (if not all) of us on this forum maintain our own private inventory systems in addition to the books published by Nathan and Buxbaum -- I am curious whether a collaborative catalogue exists among this community.  I cannot imagine that I am the first to ask this question, but my searches so far have found no examples.

In particular, while I am delighted by the readily shared information on this forum, including examples in the past month by Larry Moffett and Scott Shier with photos and descriptions -- the forum can become a difficult format to quickly search and reference this information.

My thought here is -- separate from tracking one's personal collection -- a repository for cataloguing information about Nat Geo items that can outlive all of us, in a standard, portable format that is also not locked into a single company or technology.

The goal is not to replace the forum -- my hope is that it would enhance and complement the discussions that happen here on the forum.

The key advantages that I see to this include:

  • Reduce risk of information becoming lost
  • Fill in knowledge gaps left by previous sources
  • Benefit from community contributions vs the limits of a single-author effort

The key concerns I see, and have plans to address, include:

  • Ease of use
  • Broad accessibility without special licenses or fees
  • Ability to archive or move the data to a different system or hosting platform
  • Ability to limit spam
  • Accountability (who made what changes, when)
  • Ability to revert changes when necessary

To be clear, I am not asking someone to create this for me.  If something like this does not exist already, I plan to take the initiative to create the system and begin populating it with information available to me.  However, before investing significant time in the concept, I want to check whether an effort like this is already underway.

If something like this already exists, I would prefer to contribute to that effort instead!

For any who would want to discuss specific ideas for how to implement this, I would be happy to discuss in a separate post -- but in this thread, I'd rather keep this one on the question at hand ("has this already been done?").

Thank you for your time and wisdom!

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    Richard Kennedy

    Hi Daniel,

    I use Bookpedia and DVDpedia to catalog my collection. I currently have over 3,500 publications cataloged along with 1,100 videos. It can hold a great deal of data about each item along with a photograph. I have attached a screen capture giving an example of this. It also allows export to HTML and I have room on my personal website to host these.

    • up

      Dale

      Hi Daniel

      I understand that you have expertise in how such an online catalog might best be structured and don't wish to undermine that, but out of curiousity I asked Chat-GPT, hoping this might help: 

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zAQKuSroMqLjg5RQLxK5nqwadr7Wzw9...

      Cheers

      Dale

      • up

        Daniel Eckert

        Thanks, Dale! Seems like we arrived at a similar place. I am exploring tradeoffs between a couple of approaches. Currently I have a prototype running with Omeka S and another nearly running with Semantic Media Wiki. In each case, the focus is on a blend of open standards, structured data, templating, and ease of use. The last element seems to be the most significant factor to consider between these approaches.

        Currently I'm leaning toward SMW but will be tinkering with it a bit more today before bring it back to the Corner. Omeka S seems like an excellent choice for enforcing rigid adherence to structured data, but is very inflexible from a community perspective. In Omeka S, there is an expectation for a "librarian" to establish each resource template and regular users have to stay strictly within it. The templates are somewhat time consuming to plan, and although the result is very well structured data, I am concerned that the level of effort necessary to understand the system exceeds what would be sustainable in a community/hobbyist setting.

        By comparison, SMW seems to provides more flexibility and ease of use for casual edits, as well as more flexibility in how to add new resource types -- but that also means tradeoffs in community practice (i.e. how we think about and use the tools).

        More to come.
        7