Sunday, 20 May

Harris, Roy. The Language Machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Read chap. 4-5, but over 2 separate occasions.

Jacob, Elin K. “Communication and Category Structure: The Communicative Process as a Constraint on the Semantic Representation of Information.” Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 4. Proceedings of the 4th SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 56th ASIS Annual Meeting, Columbus, OH, October 24, 1993. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 1995: 81-99.

I was excited to read this based on some of my recent readings via David Bade, as it makes use of Grice, Wittgenstein and others as it takes on the “classical theory” of categories and standard theories of communication. In the end, it was rather disappointing. It was of some value, though, as it provided me a bit more familiarity with some of these ideas.

Relies heavily on psychology and although it mentions a recent research program (1993) it barely mentions it. There is also really nothing to directly tie the ideas into LIS and especially to classification. Poorly proof-read and the content is somewhat repetitive and a tad rambling.

categories, communication, classical theory of categories, essential features, intension, extension, family resemblances, Wittgenstein, Grice, Putnam, reference, causal theory of reference, psychological essentialism, Saussure, Shannon and Weaver, Sperber and Wilson, conduit metaphor, Cooperative Principle, cognitive constraints, Chomsky, Freyd, graded typicality effects

Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:

Emily Dickinson, “The Soul Selects Her Own Society.”

William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming.”

Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, ch. 16

Monday, 21 May

Soergel, Dagobert. “The Many Uses of Classification: Enriched Thesauri, Ontologies, and Taxonomies.” In Efthimis N. Efthimiadis, ed. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 12: Proceedings of the 12th ASIST SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 64th Annual ASIST Meeting, November 2-8, 2001, Washington, DC. Medford, NJ: Information Today, c2004: 1-28.

This is a great intro article to (some of) the ideas of Terminology Services. It gives a clear exposition of the uses of thesauri and the potential benefits to users in the computing environment in which we find ourselves. I wrote on the paper when I finished it that it is an “Excellent “starter” article.”

It lists 7 areas where thesauri can be of immense value, but only covers the first 6 due to space limitations.

1. Convey meaning, orientation, and structure. Definitions.
2. Provide rich relationships. Give facts.
3. Support exploration and browsing, creativity, problem solving, planning, and design, both individual and collaborative.
4. Support knowledge-based assistance for indexing and searching, behind the scenes or collaboratively with the user.
5. Link to thesaurus entries from text. Link from one thesaurus into others. Construct an integrated access system to many thesauri.
6. Assist users in maintaining their own thesauri. Collaborative development and maintenance of thesauri.
7. Support semantic structure and processing, for example by agents, to unburden users from many task (as in the Semantic Web) (Figure 2., p. 2)

Discusses display issues throughout, providing examples where possible. In fact, the article is much shorter than the page length suggests due to so many illustrations.

Some of the comments that really stuck with me:

Knowledge organization systems (thesauri, classifications, ontologies, etc.) can do much more than support indexing and searching. They can help people to explore a domain, make creative connection between concepts, and solve problems (20). [Hell yeah! These are the sorts of things I want to facilitate by working in this area.]

Many users keep their own information systems. Actually just keeping track of email, bookmarks, files, and such becomes a problem. So users need their own personalized thesauri just to mange their own information. … Users would be well served by a system that, … puts together the results in a draft thesaurus, and then assists the user in editing and further customizing this draft thesaurus (28).

The classification researcher must be a renaissance person. Doing research about and building classification requires knowledge of many fields, many of which both contribute to knowledge about classification and use classifications (28).

Soergel goes on to list these as “the most important areas related to building and analyzing knowledge organization systems” (28):

• Principles of classification and knowledge representation
• Philosophy, esp. ontology and epistemology
• Cognitive psychology, the workings of the human mind
• Artificial intelligence
• Linguistics
• Instructional design, document design, interface design. Information architecture
• Markup languages and data structures and their standards (XML, RDF, Topic Maps, thesaurus standards, lexicographic standards) and how they interact with display
• Software considerations for thesaurus-building systems
• Last, but not least, domain knowledge, often in multiple disciplines (Fig. 22, p. 28)

Exciting stuff, boys and girls! Are you prepared? Are our schools preparing new professionals to do this work?

This article should be required reading in thesaurus construction classes and in any other courses with a section on thesauri.

classification, thesauri, display, functions, meaning, multidimensionality, concept maps, disciplinary domains, context domains, definitions, relationships, indexing, searching, query term expansion, linkages, personal thesauri, Yahoo!, AAT, AOD Thesaurus, MeSH, UMLS, MedIndex

Harris, Roy. The Language Machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Read chap. 6.

Tuesday, May 22

Jacob, Elin K. “Classification and Categorization: Drawing the Line.” In Kwasnik and Fidel, eds. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 2: Proceedings of the 2nd ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 54th ASIS Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 27-31, 1991. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, c1992: 67-83.

Cited by Uta Priss, “Multilevel Approaches to Concepts and Formal Ontologies,” p. 95. Read 16 May 2007.

Takes on the conceptual confusion surrounding classification and categorization, which are often conflated as being synonymous. Covers the classical theory of categories and the research (and resulting theories) that has undermined it. Suggests that the conflation of these two concepts is partly responsible for “the apparent failure of the classical theory to account for the instability observed in category membership” (67). Uses Keil’s notion of a communicative constraint to help understand the relationship between these two concepts.

The possibility that categories function in accordance with classical theory at one level while exemplifying aspects of instability, graded structure, and fuzzy boundaries at another should encourage researchers to set aside, for the moment, the emphasis on category structure and to focus their attention, instead, on the generation of cognitive categories and on the role(s) performed by these idiosyncratic categories in the processes of cognition and communication (81).

This is the 2nd article that I have read in as many days that claims that the classical theory of categories “rests on the assumption that intention and extension are synonymous: Being a member (extension) of a particular category entails possession of an essential and defining character (intension)” (69). Well, OK to the 2nd clause; that is simply definitional. But these claims are bugging me, nonetheless.

I think it must be because the writers are speaking “in the vulgar” as we took to calling it in Ontologies. Clearly, a member of a set is not synonymous with the characteristics which put it in the set in the first place. It possesses those characteristics; it is not those characteristics. Perhaps it would be better to say that the entities in a category are coextensive with the set of entities which bear the defining characteristics. Even that is rather loose, but seems somewhat better to me. Maybe Aristotle would claim the entity is synonymous with its essence, but probably only in a narrow sense and not in all senses. Maybe some later categoricians would, too. But I doubt anyone subscribing to the classical theory since the rise of set theory and logic would be so sloppy, if pressed. Perhaps this is a minor point, but considering the pains the author went to to pull apart the concepts of categorization and classification I find it hard to believe that they made this conflation.

classification, categorization, definition, arrangement, classical theory of categories, essential features, intension, extension, graded typicality effects, family resemblances, Wittgenstein, category construction, communicative constraint, Keil

Beghtol, Clare. “Mapping Sentences and Classification Schedules As Methods of Displaying Facets.” In Raymond Schwartz, ed. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 6: Proceedings of the 6th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 58th ASIS Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, October 8, 1995. Medford, NJ: Information Today, c1998: 1-11.

Compares the analytico-synthetic methods developed by S.R. Ranganathan and L. Guttman in bibliographic classification systems and in the behavioural sciences, respectively, with a focus on display issues.

facets, mapping sentences, classification, classification schedules, Ranganathan, Guttman, analytico-synthetic methods, displaying facet structure, library science, behavioral sciences, CC, BC2

Harris, Roy. The Language Machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Read ch. 7 and re-read the epilogue.

Thank you, David!

I must say that the lengthy paragraph on page 172-173 caused me to shudder to the core of my soul both times I read it; even more so the 2nd time having the full impact of the book behind it. I will most certainly be reading much more Harris.

Highly recommended! And do begin with the Epilogue.

Wednesday, 23 May

Crawford, Walt. Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. A Cites & Insight Book, 2007.

Read chapters 1-5. Am liking it quite a bit so far, but that was expected. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on how it would seem to one who doesn’t read library-related blogs. Only a few friends have shown up so far, but it’s comforting nonetheless.

My only small gripe (so far) is that while the UI Current LIS Clips does show up in the index, neither Sue Searing or Karla Stover Lucht do, although they do in the text (54). Of course, if I didn’t know these folks personally I probably would not be looking them up. A very small gripe, though.

Thursday, 24 May

Crawford, Walt. Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. A Cites & Insight Book, 2007.

Read chapters 6-8 in AM. Chap 9 in afternoon. Chap 10 in evening.

Albrechtsen, Hanne and Elin K. Jacob. “Classification Systems as Boundary Objects in Diverse Information Ecologies.” In Efthimis N. Efthimiadis, ed. Advances in Classification Research, Vol. 8: Proceedings of the 8th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 60th ASIS Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, November 1-6, 1997. Medford, NJ: Information Today, c1998: 1-16.

Uses Star’s notion of a boundary object to provide a dynamic role for classifications “in supporting coherence and articulation across heterogeneous contexts” (1). Also makes use of Nardi & O’Day’s idea of diverse information ecologies. Divides the epistemological approaches to classification in to two broad categories: Rational/Empirical and Historicism/Social Constructivism.

Argues that classificatory work is changing from a monolithic, top-down imposed structure to a more emergent, flexible and heterogenously accommodative form. When I look at Figure 1. Epistemologies for development of classification systems I can only agree that the Historicism/Social Constructivism side has far better answers to questions of basic view of knowledge, concepts, language and dialogue, info systems and their designers. While the chart is of necessity an oversimplification, it is the case that knowledge is historically, culturally and socially determined and is not infallible and objective. Concepts are culturally determined, domain-dependent and dependent on experience and use and are not objective modules of knowledge. And so on (14).

But I’m really beginning to have an issue with many of these articles, especially conference papers. Maybe I’m wanting more from them than what they are really designed to do. Maybe they are really just teasers and are not supposed to actually give any real information regarding what presenters are claiming. But as much as I love the theoretical ideas, I want to know what is actually being done with the theory. Is there anything being done? Perhaps this article is unfair to pick on for this specific fault because it is primarily theoretical, although it does report on two projects that supposedly involve their ideas. More in that in a moment.

Maybe a better example is Jacob’s “Communication and Category Structure: The Communicative Process as a Constraint on the Semantic Representation of Information,” found above. It goes on for several pages about some interesting ideas and then at the very end in a matter of sentences mentions that there is this research project. I could find many more examples of the same, and it isn’t all conference papers either. Where can one find the details?

A second issue I have with many of these articles (again, not necessarily only conference papers) is a lapse into flowery theoretical language. It sounds pretty and important and perhaps even meaningful until one re-reads, and re-reads, it. Then you just have to ask yourself, “Say what?” There is a better example from this week’s readings but I can’t find it quickly, so I’ll use one from the current paper.

In an information ecology, a classification system would function as a boundary object, supporting coherence and a common identity across the different actors involved. In its role as boundary object, a classification should be weakly structured in common use, while remaining open to adaptation in individual communities. Across diverse information ecologies, classification schemes would function as discursive arenas or public domains for communication and production of knowledge by all communities involved (6).

Well, after the just previous refresher by the authors on Star’s boundary objects and Nardi & O’Day’s information ecologiesI find myself shaking my head in agreement. But then I realize that this is simply definitional and is simply a recasting of the ideas inherent in these concepts into a different formulation. So. What does it mean? And, more importantly, what does it mean in practice? How is a classification scheme “weakly structured in common use?” How can it support “coherence and a common identity across the different actors?”

These are not the idle questions of a pedant on my part. I truly want to understand these ideas. I agree with a view of knowledge as socially constructed and historical. I like the concept of boundary objects and often consider myself one, to the point of seeing my professional identity and role as such. I also remember liking the concept of information ecologies from 501′s Nardi & O’Day readings, and have had their book (which I bought) on my desk to be read for a long while now.

This paper does discuss two projects in Denmark that supposedly fit their ideas (Database 2001, Book House). But while I can see how they do one one hand, I also can just as easily see that they don’t on the other. Much like my (still perhaps to come) critique of Hope Olson. It seems one wants to have their cake and eat it too. It seems that they fit their ideas because these systems were jointly designed by librarians and users using collaborative prototyping. These are important steps and ended in (one case) a classification scheme that would not fit within a disciplinary view (horses are separated from animals). The designs are visual, metaphorical, and allow for different search strategies to be employed. Again, important.

But a bit later we read, “…the Book House is a general system for fiction retrieval, which, in it s present form, cannot be customized by individual libraries to support the idiosyncratic needs of specific user communities, …” (10). Cake. And. Eating.

Nonetheless, despite my critiques of this literature in general and this article in specific, it was interesting.

classification, boundary object, information ecologies, Turing test, rationalism, empiricism, historicism, social constructivism, Star, Nardi & O’Day, Hjørland, Book House, Database 2001

Friday, 25 May

Crawford, Walt. Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. A Cites & Insight Book, 2007.

Read chapters 11-2 in AM. Read chap 13-15 in afternoon. The End.

I hope to write a separate review of this soon, so I’ll leave off any more commenting for now.

Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:

William Butler Yeats, “Leda and the Swan.”

Saturday, 26 May

Harris, Roy. The Language-Makers. London: Duckworth, 1980.

Read chap. 1 and 2/3ds of chap. 2.