The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets. It says nobody gets to tell you in advance what it is you need. We are skilled in troubleshooting problems and adept in many different computing environments.
Well just help other users ignore them if they want to. The signal benefit of these systems is that they dont recreate the structured, hierarchical categorization so often forced onto us by our physical systems. I need to provide some quick definitions, starting with ontology.
This is just how the world is. If you find a way to make it valuable to individuals to tag their stuff, youll generate a lot more data about any given object than if you pay a professional to tag it once and only once. Merges create partial overlap between tags, rather than defining tags as synonyms.
Thats what the categorization scheme is categorizing. Sometimes they are indirect, as when you use an amazon link to point to a book. It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy.
Livejournal makes absolutely no attemptto enforce solidarity or a thesaurus or a minimal set of terms, nocheck-box, no drop-box, just free-text typing. It was 5 years between the spread of the link and googles figuring out how to use whole collections of links to create additional value. We can do without it, and youd think wed have learned that lesson by now.
We pretend that country refers to a physical area the same way city does, but its not true, as we know from places like the former yugoslavia. That sign is telling you that the category ofbooks and literature isnt really in the category entertainment. What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal. Given this requirement, the views of the catalogers necessarily override the users needs and the users view of the world. Once you expand your time scale to include the actual life of the categorization scheme itself, you recognize that the distinction between temporary and permanent is awfully vague.
Instead, were dealing with a significant break -- by letting users tag urls and then aggregating those tags, were going to be able to build alternate organizational systems, systems that, like the web itself, do a better job of letting individuals create value for one another, often without realizing it. But yahoo decided to privilege one way of organizing links over all others, because they wanted to make assertions about what is real. As with the merging isbns idea, you merge individual contents, because we now have urls as unique handles. We wont even have to expend the cost to prevent people from using them. But the idea that the filtering is similarly, the idea that the categorization is done after things are tagged is incredibly foreign to cataloguers.
They also underestimate the loss from erasing difference of expression, and they overestimate loss from the lack of a thesaurus. Natural theology220 bible230 christian theology240 christian moral & devotional theology250 christian orders & local church260 christian social theology270 christian church history280 christian sects & denominations290 other religions this kind of bias is rife in categorization systems. This badly underestimates, in my view, the degree to which what libraries have historically been managing an entirely different problem. Look for the word queer in almost any top-level categorization. That sign is telling you that the category ofbooks and literature isnt really in the category entertainment.
Instead of saying that any given tag is or is not the same as another tag, del. Thats what the categorization scheme is categorizing. But this is what organization looks like when you turn it over to the users -- many different strategies, each of which works in its own context, but which can also be merged. 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. The question ontology asks is what kinds of things exist or can exist in the world, and what manner of relations can those things have to each other? Ontology is less concerned with what is than with what is possible. It was 5 years between the spread of the link and googles figuring out how to use whole collections of links to create additional value. Ill tell the user foobar and frobnitz are related. But however you do it, the frailty of human memory and the physical fact of books make some sort of organizational scheme a requirement, and hierarchy is a good way to manage physical objects. In working classification systems, success is not did we get the ideal system? But rather how close did we come, and on what measures? The idea of a perfect scheme is simply a platonic ideal. The periodic table of theelements has all of these things -- there are only a hundred or soelements the categories are simple and derivable protons dont changebecause of political circumstances only elements can be classified, notmolecules there are no blended elements and so on.Cialis levitra online, buy levitra online - Pill store, guaranteed delivery. ... these meal replacement programs pills because for them tadalafil sales and mastercard ...