Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Apr 05, Eric Schabell [eric AT schabell.com] wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:17:53PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > On Apr 05, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> > > So far the main arguments against our proposal are:
> > > 
> > > 1) difficulty searching by category in filesystem
> > ...
> > > For point 1, I'm philosophically opposed to the very "idea" that a 
> > > heirarchical classification system can be made close to any general 
> > > ideal.  They can only be made to specific ideals, and there's no way 
> > > we'll be able to all agree on our ideals.  So I think it's better to 
> > > break us from the restriction of attemtpting to make a coherent 
> > > directory classification system intended for general audiences and 
> > > instead focus on one that allows gurus to be assigned to one or more 
> > > directories, which is the specific use with which we actually use the 
> > > directories for.
> > 
> > The point is not to have a completely perfect ideal taxonomy.  As you've
> > noted, taxonimists and information architects gave up on that kind of 
> > thing
> > some time ago.  The point is to have something that is both consistent and
> > meaningful, supplanted where it isn't perfect by documentation and (if
> > absolutely necessary), other tools.  Anything that is presented to users
> > needs some kind of taxonomy so they at least have a place to start.  This
> > applies to websites and is why the unix world has (and sourcemage 
> > generally
> > supports) the LFS, desktop file spec, etc.
> > 
> This is rather short cutting the world of information architects (as a
> member of such a research department I couldn't in good faith let this
> pass). Ontologies live on today, are in full development and an active
> part of Aritficial Intelligence research everywhere... long from 'given
> up some time ago.' The key is to pick one and stick with it, which is
> what smgl has mainly done. 

Sorry, that wasn't the goal.  I work with enough IAs (and have had to
dabble enough myself) that I should know better than to say taxonomies have
been "given up".

I was mostly trying to say that the concept of an ideal spell taxonomy (in
the platonic sense of an ideal) is indeed probably a wild goose chase, but
not all attempts to organize things into a sane taxonomy are about chasing
that kind of ideal.

Attachment: pgpSRaOuaZWwb.pgp
Description: PGP signature