http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/ Argumentation: logic, theory & implementation .... and the tricky line between them Wed, 22 May 2013 05:21:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-137 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:24:37 +0000 http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-137 May very well added doing it to get life reference point. Thanks! May very well added doing it to get life reference point. Thanks!

]]> http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-125 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:21:58 +0100 http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-125 Excellent article. Excellent article.

]]> http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-96 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:35:09 +0100 http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-96 There isn’t anything more interesting than reading your article, have a nice day and come on. There isn’t anything more interesting than reading your article, have a nice day and come on.

]]> http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-4 Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:43:45 +0000 http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-4 Random thoughts on the n% belonging idea: it seems to be that there are 2 different ways in which something can fail to always fit into a certain category, and to have a percentage associated with it. On the one hand, you can have something that occasionally matches category A but then occasionally matches category B, with a complete transition between the two categories. In that case, you could estimate the amount of time in which the item was category A versus category B and say that something is 60% A and 40% B. More problematic, though, would be things that share a percentage of characteristics with category A and a percentage with B. Then, if you say that something is 60% A and 40% B, you means something different: you mean that it has combination of characteristics from both categories. Both approaches might be useful, but troublesome to work with. Also, I think even Shirky would agree with you that "throwing ontology out the window" is not a necessary step. In the article on classification, he points out that certain domains (with expert users, formal categories, established boundaries, etc) still lend themselves well to the ontological approach. From what I can gather from your blog here, it sounds like the project your working on tends more towards that kind of domain than to the sprawling chaos of web communities. Apologies if this comment ends up doubleposted. I tried once and it didn't seem to take... Random thoughts on the n% belonging idea: it seems to be that there are 2 different ways in which something can fail to always fit into a certain category, and to have a percentage associated with it. On the one hand, you can have something that occasionally matches category A but then occasionally matches category B, with a complete transition between the two categories. In that case, you could estimate the amount of time in which the item was category A versus category B and say that something is 60% A and 40% B. More problematic, though, would be things that share a percentage of characteristics with category A and a percentage with B. Then, if you say that something is 60% A and 40% B, you means something different: you mean that it has combination of characteristics from both categories. Both approaches might be useful, but troublesome to work with.
Also, I think even Shirky would agree with you that “throwing ontology out the window” is not a necessary step. In the article on classification, he points out that certain domains (with expert users, formal categories, established boundaries, etc) still lend themselves well to the ontological approach. From what I can gather from your blog here, it sounds like the project your working on tends more towards that kind of domain than to the sprawling chaos of web communities.
Apologies if this comment ends up doubleposted. I tried once and it didn’t seem to take…

]]> http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-3 Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:40:51 +0000 http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2006/01/27/shirky-and-ontology-vs-folksonomies/#comment-3 Random thoughts on the n% belonging idea: it seems to be that there are 2 different ways in which something can fail to always fit into a certain category, and to have a percentage associated with it. On the one hand, you can have something that occasionally matches category A but then occasionally matches category B, with a complete transition between the two categories. In that case, you could estimate the amount of time in which the item was category A versus category B and say that something is 60% A and 40% B. More problematic, though, would be things that share a percentage of characteristics with category A and a percentage with B. Then, if you say that something is 60% A and 40% B, you means something different: you mean that it has combination of characteristics from both categories. Both approaches might be useful, but troublesome to work with. Also, I think even Shirky would agree with you that "throwing ontology out the window" is not a necessary step. In the article on classification, he points out that certain domains (with expert users, formal categories, established boundaries, etc) still lend themselves well to the ontological approach. From what I can gather from your blog here, it sounds like the project you are working on tends more towards that kind of domain than to the sprawling chaos of web communities. Random thoughts on the n% belonging idea: it seems to be that there are 2 different ways in which something can fail to always fit into a certain category, and to have a percentage associated with it. On the one hand, you can have something that occasionally matches category A but then occasionally matches category B, with a complete transition between the two categories. In that case, you could estimate the amount of time in which the item was category A versus category B and say that something is 60% A and 40% B. More problematic, though, would be things that share a percentage of characteristics with category A and a percentage with B. Then, if you say that something is 60% A and 40% B, you means something different: you mean that it has combination of characteristics from both categories. Both approaches might be useful, but troublesome to work with.
Also, I think even Shirky would agree with you that “throwing ontology out the window” is not a necessary step. In the article on classification, he points out that certain domains (with expert users, formal categories, established boundaries, etc) still lend themselves well to the ontological approach. From what I can gather from your blog here, it sounds like the project you are working on tends more towards that kind of domain than to the sprawling chaos of web communities.

]]>