Karen ([info]sheepwhatsleeps) wrote,
@ 2006-01-26 13:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: contemplative
Current music:Close to Me - The Cure
Entry tags:academics, interesting ideas, technology

Ontology & Tagging
Poking around on LibraryThing (An awesome site, thanks [info]ellefromtheeast), I came across this article:
http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
It's a well written, accessible discussion of ontology and classification, as related to web technologies in particular. It has some interesting things to say about "tagging"-a phenomenon that's becoming popular nowadays, what with lj and flickr and various other places instituting the ability to tag entries. I like tagging a lot as a developing technology, and I'm very interested to see where it's going.

Here's an excerpt from the article from a section on lj's "interests" system:

"LiveJournal makes absolutely no attempt to enforce solidarity or a thesaurus or a minimal set of terms, no check-box, no drop-box, just free-text typing. Some people say they're interested in movies. Some people say they're interested in film. Some people say they're interested in cinema. The cataloguers first reaction to that is, "Oh my god, that means you won't be introducing the movies people to the cinema people!" To which the obvious answer is "Good. The movie people don't want to hang out with the cinema people." Those terms actually encode different things, and the assertion that restricting vocabularies improves signal assumes that that there's no signal in the difference itself, and no value in protecting the user from too many matches."

A bit later, he says "We are moving away from binary categorization -- books either are or are not entertainment -- and into this probabilistic world, where N% of users think books are entertainment....It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy. Does the world make sense or do we make sense of the world?"

I have a lot of thoughts rolling around in my head about this, but can't quite put them in paper (on the screen?) yet. I agree with pretty much everything Mr. Shirky says in this article, and there's a lot of ideas buried in it that my brain needs to work on a bit more. If you have any interest in these things, or if you're just curious about what I've been babbling about in my grad school application or when I talk about my work, then I urge you to take a look at this article.




(Post a new comment)


[info]phyrehawkk
2006-01-26 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Wow. Many of the words which I seemed to understand when I read them have completely escaped me now...but it was an interesting article to peruse anyway. It made sense, in a very fuzzy kind of way to me. I guess I haven't been reading enough academia journals or articles to get my brain pumped up to understand such things.

Was good though. ^_^

(Reply to this)


[info]riot_nrrd
2006-01-27 12:21 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the link -- very cool. I love the idea of ontology as an emergent, bottom-up property of a large system.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sheepwhatsleeps
2006-01-27 01:06 am UTC (link)
I feel like we're just starting to explore the tip of the iceberg that is the emergence of patterns from large sets of data. We now have the storage capacity and processing power to churn through incredibly large amounts of data-to extract patterns and information that is beyond the capacity of humans to notice unassisted. Obviously, it's still a job for humans to figure out what data to investigate and what patterns to look for, but the fact is that it's not physically/mentally possible for a human to read 1 million pages worth of information and extract small statistical regularities from it. But it is possible to make a computer do that. Similarly, it's not possible for one person, or a small group of people to accurately and reliably categorize every book ever made, for example. But it is possible to distribute that task amongst all the people online and allow their individual efforts to sum to a massive act of organization. Only it's done bottom-up, instead of top down. That's amazing to me.
My job at Parity involves top down tagging of bibliographic references. I can't tell you home many times I've wished that we had gone for bottom-up instead (this decision was made before I arrived). We have this enormous pool of references (10 million), and rather than asking the computer to churn through them and recognize patterns on its own, I (and a handful of other people) have to look at the references individually, figure out how to parse it, and coax the software into parsing it that way by hand. It's ludicrous. But it's too late to change now. And it is working-it's just agonizing. There has to be a better way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

A (partial) reply
(Anonymous)
2006-01-27 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the heads up on the article (and the rest of the site, actually).

I've posted some comments on my blog (http://adhominem.blogsome.com). Sorry for the gratuitous self-promotion, but it was too long to post here and, hey, you can always just not follow the link.

Matt

(Reply to this)

Shirky and Folksonomy
(Anonymous)
2006-02-01 07:44 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure about that particular article but the whole community organized organizations is a great thing. Nice to see Shirky being picked up by people not yet in the Information School community. Not that you couldn't have found it on your own but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy Wikipedia has a nice run down of further points of interests, the related links at the bottom are things mined by actual researchers in the field.

its better than hierarchy and more useful than pan-archy!

until the next time i forget your name...

(Reply to this)

Thank You for site
(Anonymous)
2007-08-26 05:10 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for your site. I have found here much useful information.
Good site ! ;)

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…