Re: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
Douglas McDavid wrote:
>
> Jon --
>
> This is actually the source that I most had
> in mind as a resource to get our enterprise
> more firmly situated on firm, practical,
> underpinnings:
>
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/lcsh.html
>
> Classification systems like UCD, Dewey, and
> even Library of Congress Classification System
>
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html
>
> are by their nature branching taxonomies, since
> they are designed to resolve to a single leaf
> level for any item (book, web page, whatever)
> because they are meant to point to a single
> physical location of an item on a shelf
> (originally).
>
> Subject heading lists, on the other hand, form
> a more unlimited lattice or lattice-like structure,
> since an item can have any number of subject headings
> pointing to it. Libraries generally (always?) use both
> a classification system and a subject heading list.
> The reason I put the question mark in the sentence
> above is that it has now been 20 years since I was
> a working librarian, and I haven't tried all that
> hard to keep up with the field.
>
> Doug McDavid
>
> Certified Executive Consultant
> Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
>
> Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu> on 03/18/2001 08:00:25 AM
>
> To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Subj: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
>
> Douglas McDavid wrote:
> >
> > Jon --
> >
> > I happen to agree with you, of course. But I've been informed in no
> > uncertain terms, several times in previous weeks, that ontology has
> > absolutely nothing to do with library (bibliographic) classification.
> >
> > Doug McDavid
> >
> > Certified Executive Consultant
> > Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> > Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> > Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> > mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
> >
> > From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>@ieee.org
> > On: 03/17/2001 07:33:59 PM
> > To: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > Subj: SUO: Site Of Interest (SOI)
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> >
> > Here's one that looks like it's up our alley:
> >
> > http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
> >
> > | This classification was prepared as a piece of
> > | the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) which
> > | covers all knowledge in a fairly uniform way.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Doug,
>
> Hmmm. Y'know, I was not even thinking of all that busyness at the time.
> I ran into that scheme'o'things mat'mat'cal (= (mat^2)cal?) when I was
> looking up what had been weblished lately on "differential extensions",
> and I guess what I had in mined at the time was the recent discussions
> about "a(n) SUO BookSelf", to which this scheme'o'things bib'graph'cal
> just struck me fancy like it might be relevant. Owse about you? --
> yes, it's re'TIR'cal ...
>
> By the way, there is the rest of that scheme -- on beyond math --
> I just thought that a sample to the wise would be sufficient ...
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/
> http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/sgml-xml.html
> http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/classification.html
> http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
>
> For yy from y0:
>
> | Illud autem existens in anima quod est signum rei,
> | ex quo propositio mentalis componitur ad modum
> | quo propositio vocalis componitur ex vocibus,
> | aliquando vocatur intentio animae, aliquando
> | conceptus animae, aliquando passio animae,
> | aliquando similitudo rei.
> |
> | William of Ockham, 'Summa Totius Logicae', 1.12.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> Still, a funny thing about librarians:
> They always seem to get the last word.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Doug,
Allow me to speculate on what the possible sources
of resistance might be to our simply using the more
honest name of "taxonomy" instead of "ontology".
1. Several fields of knowledge of my acquaintance,
that participate to some degree in this effort,
have recently gone through a "taxonomic phase",
and the word has come to take on a dated sound.
2. On a related note, the people who went through
this phase, or even heard about the aftermath,
are either burned out or bored to tiers about
the whole idea, not the least of which jaded
disillusionment and alexandrian ennui arises
from the realization of how much intellectual
blood was shed to win a world and grab a prize
that now seems like such a fardel to administer.
3. At this point the effects of "cognitive dissonance"
kick in, and tempts these martyrs to taxonomy with
the idea that "If we countenanced slaughter for it,
it must be a grail or a pearl of incomparable value".
4. Even if there were indeed many who thought that
the quest after "the one right taxonomy" (TORT)
was a righteous search for a truly unique thing,
it became rather abundantly clear to most others
just how arbitral any such result is bound to be,
with equally adequate and equally partial schemes
arising independently in many diverse communities,
and so the very idea of a "taxonomy" acquired the
taint, what is a taint of banality for some folks,
of "pluralism".
5. Comes the dawn of the new age solution --
let's just change the name to "ontology",
by all rights an old part of metaphysics,
long despised and disused in modern times,
but all is forgiven, the sins of ancestry
even commuted, if it can serve to restore
the monarchy to the throne and render the
aristocrats of authority that were lately
overthrown by that rabble-rousing science
of particpatory relativity feel like they
had the key to the one true kingdom again.
6. Besides, "ontology" sounds sexier.
Just A Guess,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤