re: [gutvol-d] first pass at a p.g. categorization scheme
brad said:
Functionally this is no different from using Borges' fictional Chinese encyclopedia for dividing different kinds of animals.
first cut -- belonging to the Emperor second cut -- embalmed third cut -- tame fourth cut -- sucking pigs fifth cut -- sirens sixth cut -- fabulous seventh cut -- stray dogs eigth cut -- included in the present classification ninth cut -- frenzied tenth cut -- innumerable eleventh cut -- drawn with a very fine camelhair brush twelfth cut -- et cetera thirteenth cut -- having just broken the water pitcher fifteenth cut -- that from a long way off look like flies
ok, brad, you create that categorization scheme, and i'll continue with the work on creating mine (because i'm not looking for help from anyone), and we'll see which one appeals to users more... :+)
Your folders are just as semantically flat as tags.
and your "semantically rich" system is a pipedream. :+)
You're also mixing different classes of metadata.
which just goes to show how pointless "metadata" is. :+) dublin core. yeah, right... -bowerbird p.s. and if you want the first pass at collaborative filtering, just scrape amazon screens for their recommendations...
Bowerbird@aol.com writes:
which just goes to show how pointless "metadata" is. :+)
dublin core. yeah, right...
Okay, perhaps I was a tad harsh. But at the same time you are missing the two points I was trying to make. a) It's not trivial to create a taxonomy because there are so many different ways that people organize things. b) Metadata is simply breaking down information that describes something into well defined key/value pairs which have some commonality When the Internet came along a lot of people (including Yahoo) thought, ah, this ain't so tough, we don't need no stink'n librarians. By and large, those systems suck. Librarians think in long time frames, so often they are a bit behind what is happening on the edge. But that doesn't mean that the centuries of knowledge and experience they have accumulated it worthless. For stuff that has been created in the last five minutes or even fifteen months, tags are a fantastic means of categorizing content. But for anything that has survived longer than that and should be preserved, a solid cataloging regime should be used, supervised by folks who know what they are doing. Even for material that has already been formally cataloged, adding tags will still be a useful means of providing immediate context which a formal catalog can't provide. But I'm sorry. A Zen ML approach to cataloging? That dog don't hunt. b/ -- Brad Collins <brad@chenla.org>, Banqwao, Thailand
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Brad Collins