Sunday, 1 Apr 2007
Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:
William Blake, “The Chimney Sweeper”
William Blake, “London”
William Wordsworth, “The World Is Too Much With Us”
Babik, Wieslaw. “Terminology as a level for the compatibility of indexing languages. Some remarks.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996. 157-162.
Aitchison, Jean. “A Classification as a source for a thesaurus: The Bibliographic Classification of H. E. Bliss as a source of thesaurus terms and structure.” Journal of Documentation 42 (3), Sep. 1986: 160-181.
This was a good article that looks at using BC2 to generate thesauri. It seems as if it could be a very useful tool; but what is the status of BC2 today? Was it completed? Has it been kept up-to-date? Need to look into that at some point….
Doerr, Martin and Patrick LeBoeuf. “Modelling intellectual processes: The FRBR-CRM Harmonization.” The CIDOC Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006 [pdf]
For Ontologies.
Monday, 2 Apr 2007
Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:
William Wordsworth, “Composed upon Westminster Bridge”
Broughton, Vanda. “Structural, linguistic and mathematical elements in indexing languages and search engines: Implications for the use of index languages in electronic and non-LIS environments.” Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 7 (2000): Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization. Proceedings of the Sixth International ISKO Conference 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ergon Verlag: 206-212.
Farradane, J. “Relational indexing.” The Indexer: Journal of the Society of Indexers 2 (4)Autumn 1961
Wow! Über-classic article.
Monday – Tuesday, 2 – 3 Mar 2007
Doerr, Martin and Patrick Le Bouef. FRBR object-oriented definition (version 6.7) August 2006.
This is the version Allen linked to for Ontologies, but he and several others had the newest which is 7.1. That made me a little grumpy, to say the least. This is an attempt to harmonize FRBR with the CIDOC CRM.
These guys really are brilliant people, but this thing is a mess. If you had any squishy thoughts about FRBR at all, but particularly “works” or “manifestations,” be ready to have your brain pulled out through your rear end, kneaded until soft(er), pureed in a blender and put back in with a turkey baster up your nostrils. Seriously. A small part of that was trying to keep straight the newer model used in discussion from the one I had read, but mostly it was the several types of “manifestations” and, oh perhaps, a dozen kinds of “works.” Seriously guys, logic is not always your friend. I understand the logical purpose for the reification of multiple kinds of works, but is it useful?
I guess I truly need to see a bare-bones catalog and cataloging module that’s been designed with this model, play with it a bit, and then have a look at the innards. But I seriously cannot see anybody building something that will be used based on this. Maybe I’m just not the proper middle man here, but since that’s the role I see myself in in my professional life I consider that an issue. I really want to know how anyone will get from this model to a workable system that practitioners will buy in to.
Tuesday, 3 Apr 2007
Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:
Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Ozymandias”
Wednesday, 4 Apr 2007
Dousa, Thomas A. “Towards a clarification of the superwork in Svenonius’s set-theoretical model of the bibliographic universe.” Seminar paper for LIS590OH Spring 2007.
Good jeebus! Tom is a freaking genius! I need to re-read this—very closely—at least one more time. I’m not sure I see the same problem in Svenonius that Tom saw and solved. But, for now, I am assuming that he is right about the problem being there. Because as I said, Tom is a freaking genius! And if the problem is there. He solved it. And he used a few words that I’m going to have to look up, so that’s a bonus.
I’m just really sad that I’ll miss him presenting it next week. The week after I get to present my little paper on clarifying P88 and P89 in CIDOC CRM. I was so excited to find out Allen liked my paper! But now, after reading Tom’s, I feel so inadequate. Oh well, I’ve already warned several fellow students not to compare themselves to Tom. I best take my own advice for once.
Thursday, 5 Apr 2007
Albertsen, Ketil and Carol van Nuys. “Paradigma: FRBR and digital documents.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39 (3/4), 2005: 125-149.
This is from the special issue of CCQ edited by Patrick Le Boeuf, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-all? Well worth checking out if you are new to FRBR.
This paper is about some FRBR Group 1 extensions implemented by the National Library of Norway for handling composite entities at all abstraction levels. I may have read it before as I read most of this issue, but it was cited by Tom in his paper.
Perreault, Jean. (1965) “Categories and relators: a new schema.” Reprinted in: Knowledge Organization 21 (4), 1994: 189-197.
Another Über-classic article.
Friday, 6 Apr 2007
Efthimiadis, Efthimis N. (1996) “Query expansion.” ARIST 31
Read to get some idea about the topic of query expansion and so I can say something about the role of relationships in this portion of search for my Representation and Organization project.
Buckland, Michael K., et. al. Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 7 (2000): Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization. Proceedings of the Sixth International ISKO Conference 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ergon Verlag: 48-53.
Interesting report of some preliminary work I need to look into. Functional relationships may well be more important, or at least as important, as semantic relationships in providing access to organized knowledge/information.
Saturday, 7 Apr 2007
Vickery, Brian C. “Knowledge representation: A brief review.” The Journal of Documentation 42 (3), Sep. 1986: 145-149.
A decent early overview of ways of representing knowledge, particularly for use in computer systems.
The praise showered on Dousa’s seminar paper is really making me want to read it. But of course it’s unpublished as yet…sounds like he has a good chance of getting it out there, though.
BTW: I really appreciate these mass-reading lists you do, Mark — you plow through a lot of material and clue others into what might be essential theoretical grounding for us.
I’ll try to remember if I can ask Tom if he’s willing to share it, or what his publication plans, if any, are?
Thanks for the feedback, Ben! One of my friends has said that he’s just quit reading them because their too intimidating! Many other people are constantly asking me how I find the time to do this much reading. (Of course, I wonder the same thing about people that read 100+ books/year.) I try to buffer the complaints by reminding people that so far I just read and don’t do much with them, which is supposedly the point.
I also wish I wrote better abstracts/reviews (or wrote them period) for more of the things. It would’ve been nice if I had since I now need to go back and do that for one of my projects.
I’ll try to remember that and do “better” in the future, but that’s a definite maybe.
“be ready to have your brain pulled out through your rear end, kneaded until soft(er), pureed in a blender and put back in with a turkey baster up your nostrils. ”
Oh man, I wish I could have taken Ontologies this semester. I’m a big fan of “crack your head open” education.
Well, I know several of us wish you were there, too.
I, too, am a fan of “crack your head open.” but this was just not the right kind of head crackin’. Something along the lines of a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster would be more like it.
I guess the difference isn’t really in the head crackin’ itself but more whether once it’s over was it useful and/or fun? This experience was just plain utterly confusing.
“Well, I know several of us wish you were there, too.”
Oh gosh, really?! Thanks, I’m blushing over here.
I know I should get over it, but I’ve been gnashing my teeth over this class and its inaccessibility to me all semester. Hearing about that paper from Tom did not help.
OK — I can’t resist. Hit your site (again) on a search for something else.
Farradane and Perrault ROCK! So I’m happy, of course, to hear that you think so too, Über-classic articles INDEED.
BC2 is the life work of the Classification Research Group – my heros – Vickery, Mills and Broughton have all been associated with the group over time — all of whom are still active, and Broughton (and Slavic’s work), as you have indicated, is of special interest — see: FATHUM (http://ucl.ac.uk/fatks/database.htm) which explored the possibility utilizing the existing facet analysis from BC2, BSO (Dahlberg) and UDC. in a prototype classification tool. See current activities regarding the BCA (Bliss Classification Association founded in 1967) with regard to BC2 here: http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/bca/bcahome.htm
There has been discussion about movement to harmonize the UDC and BC2 — but that is another discussion for another time.
Kathryn
Pingback: Some things read this week, 8 - 14 April 2007
Hi Kathryn, thanks for dropping by even if unintentionally.
Yeah, searching–not sure how I feel about that, as we’ve discussed before. Oh well, my future employers will either like me as a whole package or they’ll judge me entirely based on something written here. I really have no control over that.
And based on my past history, I MUST strive to be a whole individual. Thus, as much of me as time and energy allows will appear here.
Thanks for the cites. I poked around the BC2 site a bit yesterday. BC2 has been a growing–but unpursued–interest for quite a while now. I have read quite a few articles suggesting BC2 as a backbone classification or “switching language.”
FATHUM looks somewhat familiar; maybe we glanced at the site during 590CS. Will have to poke around.