Thank you Peter Breuggemans for getting librarians a soapbox. Let's pretend that KOF is to become part of the Dewey Decimal method of classification. It would begin with a unique string representative of a defined class of ideas, actions, practices, physical items derived from broadly accepted uses. This leads to all sorts of quaint reflections on the time that these definitions were put into practice. There were more numbers allotted to Religion and Librarianship for instance than to Nuclear Science in my days as a cataloguer, but that reflects the 19th century and the handful of revisions that visited Dewey. From this unique string you become more specific on the other side of the decimal point. In clusters of further strings, you more closely define your subject within the broader topic, such as lugged or non-lugged, tube material, country of origin, date of manufacture; you choose the level of how tight you wish to define the individual item and go as far as you wish (our final in one of my classes was to generate a 32 digit Dewey for a book we picked at random) capping it all with a Cutter Number to represent the maker. It is neither Republican or Democrat, but both as vague as necessary and specific as needed. Dale's pronouncements are the unique string, how we wish to define the rest can be worked out. I've gotten a couple of on-topic frames of late and am proceeding to create Frankenbikes with ignorance born of guilt as my guide. So, I'm definitely KOF at heart.
Harrison Lee
Stockton, CA