Prior to my ventures in library science, I genuinely wondered if wanting to go through and subcategorically organize information was just a weirdo thing my brain did. The idea that TV metadata may become more of a thing – that, say, in addition to searching programs by actors, directors, networks, etc. we might be able to search who designed the dress that a certain actress was wearing in a certain scene of a certain television program while a certain song played and not just because some nerd on Tumblr accidentally figured it out (and believe me, I’ve been that nerd) – well.
I know I keep saying things like “this is the job for me!” but. This could be the job for me.
So I’m looking at the language guidelines and…
The language tag always defines a language as spoken (or written,
signed or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of
information to other human beings. Computer languages such as
programming languages are explicitly excluded. There is no
guaranteed relationship between languages whose tags begin with the
same series of subtags; specifically, they are NOT guaranteed to be
mutually intelligible, although it will sometimes be the case that
What this says to me is that the language element pertains strictly to available language. And the thing about photographs is: there might be words in a language in them, but in this case it’s likely just names. And understanding the language someone’s name is in is not relevant to understanding the photo, most likely.
This is a rather useless element in this case.
An interesting notion. I’m going to once again take this from a Tumblr perspective, just because I think that’s a useful way of analyzing concepts to reach non-LIS people and it’s a fun exercise.
Some people on Tumblr, like me, will tag the ofness of a post in meticulous detail. (See my earlier post.) Who it’s of, if they’re in anything, fictional characters, seasons of programs, etcetera. Some people on Tumblr do this really interesting thing called tag meta, where in the section allotted for tagging ofness they write sprawling analysis of or thoughts related to the post and what they perceive as its aboutness. This is difficult because since they’re thoughts, not just keywords, they’re not really searchable, but it’s not uncommon to see someone reblogging a post with the last person’s tag meta copied on. (This is considered more graceful than adding analysis in the body of the post, generally.) I personally can’t do this because my OCD shines in my tagging system and its searchability (although I do have some subjective tags (“girlcrushes” and “boycrushes,” for example, because a picture that’s of Adrianne Palicki isn’t inherently about girlcrushes but boy howdy, for me it is) but I find it very interesting.
And my overall point here is that aboutness is, as has been said, more difficult to categorize and search but definitely can add value.