Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TaxoCoP] Validity Check

Expand Messages
  • John O'Gorman
    Gabriel - thanks for the suggestion. I will post my results this coming week. Great pick, by the way...tweets have a lot of common elements. John O ... From:
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 4 6:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Gabriel - thanks for the suggestion. I will post my results this coming week. Great pick, by the way...tweets have a lot of common elements.
       
      John O'
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Gabriel Tanase [mailto:gabtanase@...]
      Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2010 04:01 AM
      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Validity Check

       

      John,

      Try to work out a few examples to see whether it flies.

      For example, what would you combine to tag a just-posted tweet? How would you get from what's in the tweet and from who posted it to the fundamental "DNA strands" that should be capable of describing all information?

      I have to say I am a bit skeptical.


      Kind regards,
      Gabriel
      ----------
      http://ie.linkedin. com/in/gabrielta nase



      On 3 April 2010 19:01, John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com> wrote:


      Good afternoon, all;
       
      As some of you know, I am writing a book - to be released in October - about my Q6 model for organizing information. There have been a number of contributing factors to this happening,  and this group being one of them I was wondering if I could impose upon all of the posters and pundits out there to comment on an idea.
       
      There are two complementary concepts in genetics - genotype and phenotype - that I want to apply in a metaphorical way to the classification of digital assets. Basically a genotype is the sum total of an organism's genetic material, while a phenotype is the expression of the form, life cycle and behaviour of said genotype. I'm wondering if a case can be made for a relatively small set of base genotypes forming the foundation for all of the combinations and permutations we see in the digital world.
       
      The question is this: if a person could identify the primary base genotype - and the one or more genotypes that contribute to the end product (the phenotype) - is there a case to be made for a universal taxonomy complemented by "specialization- by-combination" ?   In other words, does the group support the notion of a sort of digital DNA approach to classification?
       
       




       

    • Nick Berry
      Isn t that sort of what Ranganathan discovered? A way to break information down into it s most basic components. Except then you have names for each type; ie
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 4 9:48 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Isn't that sort of what Ranganathan discovered?  A way to break information down into it's most basic components.  Except then you have names for each type; ie object=tree or person=John O'Gorman.  The fact that each name could be almost limitless will defy the utility of such a descriptive system.  With genes, types are limited - that is, there are x number of genes in the world, and they don't have individual expression.

        For the Tweet example, my friend just posted "Radiohead never gets old.". We could say object(type=musical band, individual expression=Radiohead) + time(type=measurement; expression=never) + action(type=development;expression=becoming;tense=present) + characteristic(type=modifier;expression=age)....but this has far more potential permutations than the genetic code and attempting to classify all knowledge using componentry like this loses its functionality somewhere around O (n^3) ... just doesn't seem worth the effort.   

        On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:01 AM, "John O'Gorman" <jogorman@...> wrote:

         

        Good afternoon, all;
         
        As some of you know, I am writing a book - to be released in October - about my Q6 model for organizing information. There have been a number of contributing factors to this happening,  and this group being one of them I was wondering if I could impose upon all of the posters and pundits out there to comment on an idea.
         
        There are two complementary concepts in genetics - genotype and phenotype - that I want to apply in a metaphorical way to the classification of digital assets. Basically a genotype is the sum total of an organism's genetic material, while a phenotype is the expression of the form, life cycle and behaviour of said genotype. I'm wondering if a case can be made for a relatively small set of base genotypes forming the foundation for all of the combinations and permutations we see in the digital world.
         
        The question is this: if a person could identify the primary base genotype - and the one or more genotypes that contribute to the end product (the phenotype) - is there a case to be made for a universal taxonomy complemented by "specialization- by-combination" ?   In other words, does the group support the notion of a sort of digital DNA approach to classification?
         
         

      • Jonathan Studiman
        Hi John, Typically, a metaphor is used to bring clarity or offer new insight. It depends on the reader being familiar with the reference. You are asking your
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 6 7:52 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi John,
           
          Typically, a metaphor is used to bring clarity or offer new insight.  It depends on the reader being familiar with the reference.  You are asking your reader to understand concepts in genetics in order to explain an approach to classification.  This is a problem, because having to explain a metaphor robs it of its illustrative power.  Your metaphor might be useful explaining your classification to a group of geneticists, but to a group of information professionals?  To be honest, my eyes start to blur trying to understand an approach to classification through "primary base genotypes" and "specialization by combination".
           
          I *think* your Q6 is basically a faceted classification?
           
          regards
          Jonathan
        • John O'Gorman
          Good discussion so far...here are a few responses. @Jonathan. Good observation re: metaphor. Having to explain a metaphor is as bad I suppose as having to
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 6 11:10 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Good discussion so far...here are a few responses.
             
            @Jonathan. Good observation re: metaphor. Having to explain a metaphor is as bad I suppose as having to explain a joke.
            In my defense, I consider this group to be more attuned to the similarities of all models, and if you get right down to it all information exchange is based on an agreement about the components (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon), the rules for identifying both the elemental nature and behaviours of each (as one of four neuclotides) and how combinations (of neucleotides) affect the properties of the results (gene sequence and the creation of proteins as expressions of those genes.)
             
            Q6 is a faceted classification framework - I think it was Nick who mentioned Ranganathan - with the difference that Q6 predicts a fixed number of them based on language. So instead of figuring out how to make a publication, for example, "faceted" the understanding is that any attribute associated with it is automatically part of an existing facet. Similarly, a database table on say 'Customer Information' is automatically faceted given the structure and the nature of the content of the individual columns.
             
            The tweet example is a good one to work with, and an illustration of how one can simultaneously hold two views of the same thing. Gabriel's structural view of a tweet (a tweet being a purpose-built (Functional) Digital Asset) has a Person in the Role of 'tweeter', the message (which is a Functional component of the tweet), a Point (date) value and an optional Status ('re-tweet'). The structure - by necessity - is persistent.
             
            Flipping into Nick's semantic view of a specific tweet (using the same structure as above) the subject of his example is an Organization (Radiohead), with Status values 'never' and 'old', a Point value of 'April 4, 2010' and (I will assume) a re-tweet Status of 'N'. The semantics, as shown in my introduction, while using values from similar facets, is open to interpretation.
             
            Once established as an Organization - an admittedly awkard classification for a small group - a person can hang all manner of associations from 'Radiohead' that could lead to more elegant searches for Radiohead music, Radiohead videos, Radiohead articles, Radiohead websites, Radiohead history, Radiohead gigs (past, present and future) and it goes on and on.  Simple substitution means I can create the exact same combinations but with an entirely different group. Having recognizable categories means among other things that I can aggregate members of the same facet, or I can intersect two or more facets to create navigable 'cubes' of entertainment information of my favourite groups / performers.
             
            The purpose of using such a small number of classes on such a large (as Nick points out, practically infinite) number of combinations is to provide a starting point for an individual piece of data that eliminates all the other potential starting points. It's not an attempt to overstep all other classification schemas; just a suggestion for making things more accessible. Another way to put this...if you were to ask a cross-section of people on the internet to declare a likely class for 'Radiohead' from the following six choices (who, what, where, when, why and how) I'm fairly certain they would pick either 'who' or 'what'.
             
            I will double-check the structural parts of a tweet and post any corrections etc, but I think you get the general idea. Based on the feedback so far, though, I think I will seriously consider dropping the metaphor.
             
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Jonathan Studiman [mailto:jstudim@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 08:52 AM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re:Validity Check

          • Kelly Green
            John,   What you are describing is a faceted approach, which is very useful for browsing structures and search refinement.  While Ranganathan discovered a
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 29 7:13 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              John,

               
              What you are describing is a faceted approach, which is very useful for browsing structures and search refinement.  While Ranganathan discovered a method to describe a wide range of books, his categories do not map perfectly onto the modern world.   You have to be particular about the characteristics that are useful to your users
               
              Think Amazon: object is classified by medium (book, movie, music) with subtype mediums (dvd, bluray, cd, digital, etc), by genre,(books = fiction, non fiction, sci fi ) again with subgenres,  by audience (generally age groups), by author/muscian/director. By combining components, you can reduce a very large group of data to managable parts.
              I have seen increasing numbers of E-commerce and large content websites using this or similar approaches.
               
              However, i think that the genetics analogy doesn't really fit. I agree with Nick that genetic permutations are more narrow and acutally they are more firmly heirarchical than many other systems.  You would need to go a bit further to see a multi-hierarchical approach.  For a authoritative look at genetic heiraries -- look at MeSH: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html. They classify by organism and cross reference to diseases. Some of the diseases/disorders belong to multiple heirarchies:
               
              However, it is still more hierarchical than what you seem to be describing.
               
              Kelly Green

              From: Nick Berry <infoglutton@...>
              To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 12:48:55 PM
              Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Validity Check

               

              Isn't that sort of what Ranganathan discovered?  A way to break information down into it's most basic components.  Except then you have names for each type; ie object=tree or person=John O'Gorman.  The fact that each name could be almost limitless will defy the utility of such a descriptive system.  With genes, types are limited - that is, there are x number of genes in the world, and they don't have individual expression.

              For the Tweet example, my friend just posted "Radiohead never gets old.". We could say object(type= musical band, individual expression=Radiohea d) + time(type=measureme nt; expression=never) + action(type= development; expression= becoming; tense=present) + characteristic( type=modifier; expression= age)....but this has far more potential permutations than the genetic code and attempting to classify all knowledge using componentry like this loses its functionality somewhere around O (n^3) ... just doesn't seem worth the effort.   

              On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:01 AM, "John O'Gorman" <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com> wrote:

               

              Good afternoon, all;
               
              As some of you know, I am writing a book - to be released in October - about my Q6 model for organizing information. There have been a number of contributing factors to this happening,  and this group being one of them I was wondering if I could impose upon all of the posters and pundits out there to comment on an idea.
               
              There are two complementary concepts in genetics - genotype and phenotype - that I want to apply in a metaphorical way to the classification of digital assets. Basically a genotype is the sum total of an organism's genetic material, while a phenotype is the expression of the form, life cycle and behaviour of said genotype. I'm wondering if a case can be made for a relatively small set of base genotypes forming the foundation for all of the combinations and permutations we see in the digital world.
               
              The question is this: if a person could identify the primary base genotype - and the one or more genotypes that contribute to the end product (the phenotype) - is there a case to be made for a universal taxonomy complemented by "specialization- by-combination" ?   In other words, does the group support the notion of a sort of digital DNA approach to classification?
               
               


            • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
               
              Hi John,
               
              Typically, a metaphor is used to bring clarity or offer new insight.  It depends on the reader being familiar with the reference.  You are asking your reader to understand concepts in genetics in order to explain an approach to classification.  This is a problem, because having to explain a metaphor robs it of its illustrative power.  Your metaphor might be useful explaining your classification to a group of geneticists, but to a group of information professionals?  To be honest, my eyes start to blur trying to understand an approach to classification through "primary base genotypes" and "specialization by combination" .
               
              I *think* your Q6 is basically a faceted classification?
               
              regards
              Jonathan