Sunday, 17 Feb 2008

Decker, S. et al. 2000. The Semantic Web: the roles of XML and RDF. Internet Computing, IEEE 4, no. 5:63-73.

For Ontology Development.

Monday – Friday, 18 – 22 Feb 2008

Harris, Roy, and Indian Institute of Advanced Study. 2003. History, Science, and the Limits of Language : an Integrationist Approach. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

• Ch 1 : The Language of History and the Language of Science (Mon)
• Ch 2 : The Origins of Mathematics (Wed)
• Ch 3 : Communication by Numbers (Thu)
• Ch 4 : Language Unlimited? (Thu)

Friday, 22 Feb 2008

Harris, Roy. 1998. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. 1st ed. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Re-reading this for its overview of Integrationism.

• Ch 1 : Language and Communication

Saturday, 23 Feb 2008

Richards, Jennifer. 2008. Rhetoric. London: Routledge.

I cataloged this little book a few weeks ago. It looked interesting enough to possibly provide a decent overview of rhetoric. And it was.

This is not a rhetoric handbook, but more of a history of rhetoric, its ups and downs, and its re-shapings. I found it quite interesting and somewhat useful as far as putting together (for myself) a bigger, coherent picture of Western intellectual thought over the past 2.5 millennia. Also validated much of Harris’ critique of Western education on language—grammar, rhetoric, metaphor, etc.

Officially, I am registered for one 8-hour “class” this semester, LIS593 CAS Project.

Individual study of a problem in library or information science; forms the culmination of the Certificate of Advanced Study program. Only 8 hours will apply to the CAS degree [catalog].

As to what I’m doing there pick pretty much any post from last year, but especially starting mid-May. Or, perhaps this is best?

More on this topic <patented hand-waving> in the future </ patented hand-waving>.

Besides working 60% which is beginning to seem like a lot again, I am sitting in on 2 seminars. There are several of us nuts in each of them and some folks actually taking the classes for grades.

Both are on Tuesday, which is my only non-work day, in the afternoon and at night. Both are on campus. I love my distance peeps but I am a bad LEEP student.

590SA Topics in Subject Access : Pauline Cochrane and Kathryn La Barre

An advanced topics seminar in subject access and subject analysis that covers a range of topics including aspects of the traditional bibliographic canon regarding OPACS, the challenge of universal subject access in a digital world, ongoing discussions about Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), new search and discovery tools (including experimentations with hybrid folksonomic and corporate taxonomic approaches (syllabus version). [catalog]

Pauline is emphasizing the duality between subject access and subject analysis, as she says there “is a split in focus in library science [specifically]; these two vantage points are our heritage.”

Early readings/assignments include reading 2 chapters from her festschrift (Wheeler). We’re reading Robert Fugmann, “Obstacles in Progress in Mechanized Subject Access and the Necessity of a Paradigm Change,” and our own Linda Smith’, “Subject Access in Interdisciplinary Research.” I’m not sure if I’ve read the Fugmann but the Smith is excellent. I’ve read it at least 3 times before.

There is another assignment that involves the Clinic book but I am not concerned with doing it.

Readings for next week are the 2 chapters of the festschrift I previously listed, and 2 from Visualizing …: Elizabeth D. Liddy’s “Natural Language Processing for Information Retrieval and Knowledge Discovery” and Joseph A Busch’s “Building and Accessing Vocabulary Resources for Networked Resource Discovery and Navigation.”

Wheeler, William J, ed. 2000. Saving the Time of the Library User Through Subject Access Innovation: Papers in Honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Champaign, IL: Publications Office, Graduate School of Library and Information Science. [WorldCat]

Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1998. Visualizing Subject Access for 21st Century Information Resources. Eds. Pauline A Cochrane and Eric H Johnson. Champaign, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [WorldCat]

We also are reading an unpublished paper (1979) of Pauline’s on universal subject access and advising her on its suitability for publication today as a means to think about these issues and, I would add, historically and contemporarily.

590OD Ontology Development : Allen Renear

An introduction to formal ontology focusing on development and implementation issues and contemporary ontology software tools and languages. In spring of 2008 we will use as example ontologies one for museum and heritage information (CIDOC-CRM) and one for biological information (the Functional Model of Anatomy). Students may also do projects on other ontologies in other areas if they wish. The ontology editor Protege will be used throughout and the representation of ontologies in W3C semantic web languages RDF(S) and OWL will be emphasized. [catalog]

This is an odd class for Allen as it involves a hands-on component using Protégé to view, edit, build ontologies. Protégé is a free, open-source ontology editor.

Some of the topics we will be becoming “familiar” with are RDF and OWL, which I certainly need more knowledge of.

Related miscellanea

On a side note, I’m thinking of taking the TEI workshop again later in Feb. I did it 2 years ago on my birthday weekend. The then draft P5 version was formalized this past year so it can’t hurt to have a look again over a weekend.

While in one sense, these classes are completely extraneous to me, although in a larger sense they are important. Luckily I’ll have the flexibility to commit any level of effort, including none, to them. I foresee far more than none most of the time, though. Time will tell.

Technically, I still have an incomplete for my vocabularies independent study from last spring. Four hours. In truth, those 4 hours along with those from Bibliography will be extra hours when completed. This needs to be cleaned up as it has finally turned to an F. There is also the possibility of having it dropped, or more likely changed to Withdrawal.

I am hoping that one of these 2 classes will inspire me to spit out “a school assignment” somehow on the topic of vocabularies that I can turn in to be graded. I’d still really like to do what I had planned all along, but it will not happen, now.

Somehow it seems likely one or both will generate a topic. But will it be one that I can just generate something from? Something of quality, of course. But. Normal-sized.

Sunday, 4 Nov

Romero Guillém, María Dolores. “Graeco-Latin vocabulary in ESP texts and its pedagogical implications.” In Inchaurralde, Carlos (Ed.) Perspectives on Semantics and Specialised Languages. Universidad de Zaragoza, Departamento de Filología Inglesa y Alemana, 1994: 285-293.

Green Rebecca. “Conceptual Universals in Knowledge Organization and Representation.” [Keynote Address] In López-Huertas, María J. Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Organization for the 21st Century. Integration of Knowledge across Boundaries. Proceedings of the Seventh International ISKO Conference, 10-13 July 2002, Granada, Spain. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 8 (2002): 15-27.

Harris, Roy. The Language-makers. London: Duckworth, 1980. [Re-reading]

• Ch. 6.
• Ch. 7

Harel, David. Computers Ltd.: What They Really Can’t Do. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. [for LIS452]

• Ch. 4: Sometimes we just don’t know

Monday, 5 Nov

Solnit, Rebecca. “Finding time: the fast, the bad, the ugly, the alternatives.” Orion Magazine September/October 2007.

Found via Library Juice. Thanks, Rory!

For variety’s sake I’ll use a different paragraph to give the gist of the article:

The conundrum is that the language to describe the ineffable splendors and possibilities of our lives takes time to master, takes a certain unhurried engagement with the tasks of description, assessment, critique, and conversation; that to speak this slow language you must slow down, and to slow down you must have some inkling of what you will gain by doing so. It’s not an elite language; nomadic and remote tribal peoples are now quite good at picking and choosing from development’s cascade of new toys, and so are some of the cash-poor, culture-rich people in places like Louisiana. Poetry is good training in speaking it, and skepticism is helpful in rejecting the four horsemen of this apocalypse, but they both require a mind that likes to roam around and the time in which to do it.

Monday – Wednesday, 5 – 7 Nov

Harris, Roy. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. 1st ed, Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1998. [Re-reading]

• Ch. 1: Language and Communication [Mon-Tue]
• Ch. 2: Language and the Language Myth [Tue-Wed]

Wednesday, 7 Nov

Renear, Allen H. and David Dubin. “Three of the Four FRBR Group 1 Entity Types are Roles, not Types.” In Grove, Andrew and Abebe Rorissa, Eds. Proceedings of the 70th ASIS&T Annual Meeting Volume 44 2007: Joining Research and Practice: Social Computing and Information Science, October 19-24, Milwaukee, WI.

There are things I want to say about this but will refrain for now. At the moment, I only want to ask, “Why?”

Thursday – Friday, 8 – 9 Nov

Harris, Roy. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. 1st ed, Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1998. [Re-reading]

• Ch. 3: Language and Meaning
• Ch 4: Language and Discourse

Thursday, Saturday, 8, 10 Nov

Richter, Melvin. “Begriffsgeschichte and the History of Ideas.” Journal of the History of Ideas 48(2), Apr.-Jun., 1987:247-263. [via JSTOR]

Was cited by one of the chapters I was reading in the book on Begriffsgeschichte last week. This does a somewhat better job of saying what Begriffsgeschichte is, at least if one is looking for a single article/chapter length look.

Saturday, 10 Nov

Harris, Roy. The Language-makers. London: Duckworth, 1980. [Re-reading]

• Ch. 8.

Mertz, David. Text Processing in Python. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2003.

• Appendix A: Selective and Impressionistic Short Review of Python

Sunday, 1 Jul

Uta Priss, “Associative and Formal Concepts,” Conceptual Structures: Integration and Interfaces, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 2002, http://www.upriss.org.uk/papers/icc02.pdf (accessed July 1, 2007).

Cited by Tennis (2005) “Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification.” Knowledge Organization 32 (2), 2005: 79-92. Read 13-14 June 2007.

Monday, 2 Jul

RDA-related items:

• RDA Scope and Structure (revised 14 June 2007)
• Objectives and Principles (7 Dec 2005)
• RDA to FRBR Mapping (14 June 2007)

Comments on scope and structure: I fully realize the status of FRAD and FRANAR but, according to section 1.2 and 1.3, subjects and subject relationships are currently out of scope for RDA as either descriptive data or access point control data. On what basis can RDA be a standard for access then?

Section 2.1 Part A – Description: Formalizes the content vs. carrier dichotomy [see my comments on Howarth below] and makes it worse by associating carrier with manifestation and item and content with work and expression. This is such a gross simplification of the real world. These folks really need to read Rebecca Green’s recent analysis of this situation. Content and carrier are far more intertwined than these folks are willing to admit. And failure to admit and plan for this means ambiguous, and conflicting interpretations of the, rules for description.

Same section: Acquisition and access. Restricts this to manifestation and item level elements. One might think they mean things like terms of availability, remote access privileges, etc. relate to commercial resources, and I believe that is their focus. But. Under the head of “obtaining access to a resource” and “restrictions on access” I would most certainly put content and expression-level attributes that affect access. You know. Like anything having to do with “pornography.” Cause I’m really failing to see how any manifestation or item-level attributes have anything to do with why we as a society try and restrict such expressed content from minors. It is most definitely the content and its expression to which we restrict access.

Comments on objectives: 2. Functionality of records produced using RDA: Principles: Relationships.

The descriptive data provided for in the guidelines and instructions should indicate significant bibliographic relationships between the resource described and other resources.

The access point data provided for in the guidelines and instructions should reflect all significant bibliographic relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, persons, families, and corporate bodies (p. 4).

I am elated to see this spelled out here. My concern is, though, just what constitutes a “significant bibliographic relationship,” much less all of them? I have not seen these enumerated anywhere.

Admittedly, if you look at the RDA-FRBR mapping beginning on page 7 you will notice that they are using Tillett’s taxonomy of 7 bibliographic relationships in the mapping. That’s good to see. As a start. But where are they explicitly explicated as the and all of the “significant bibliographic relationships?”

I have not read much of the actual Parts of RDA. I have only begun that task. RDA looks to be making significant progress in some respects. In others it has completely missed the boat. As for people actually learning to use this I have some serious doubts. I may not be a “new world order” metadata expert but I have had a class in it and have made assorted resources using MODS, TEI, DC, Topic Maps and a few others. I have spent a semester looking at FRBR, CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo. I know how to read an ER diagram. I have written my own XML schema and modified others. I have a decent grasp of elements and attribute-value pairs and other related concepts. I say all this only to illustrate my concern for how more traditional folks doing description and access work are going to make the transition to RDA. Perhas it won’t be as difficult as I’m envisioning, but I worry ….

Tuesday, 3 Jul

Grice, H. P. “Logic and Conversation.” In The Logic of Grammar, edited by Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, pp. 64-75. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 1975. This lecture was originally delivered at Harvard University in 1967.

Cited by Dewdney & Michell (1997) “Asking “Why” Questions in the Reference Interview: A Theoretical Justification.” Read 19 June 2007.

I think Grice makes some very valid points, but he’s also a bit too logical about it. Also, the assumption that much of human communication is conversational is flawed. And Grice’s view of conversation seems to be seriously based on a certain British, educated, and perhaps even classist view. [I really should have written about this shortly after reading it.]

Anyway, it is recommended. It is not very long and is useful goad to thinking about these matters.

Wednesday, 4 Jul

Pepper, Steve. Towards the Semantic Superhighway: A Manifesto for Published Subjects. (2006).

Pepper’s manifesto for Published Subjects and published subject indicators (PSIs). Here are my PSIs (so far) for my Topic Maps project.

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Began; read introductory matter and 1st 3 chapters.

I would have liked to read the 2 previous books first, but this one has the shortest loan period, by far.

Monday – Wednesday, 2-4 Jul

The Successful Academic Librarian: Winning Strategies from Library Leaders (Medford, N.J: Information Today, Inc, 2005).

Read most of this, but not every word. Not sure if I want to recommend it or not, but (parts of) it might be very useful to some of you.

Thursday, 5 Jul

Lynne C. Howarth. “Content versus Carrier.” Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada October 23-25, 1997, 1998. [Green’s presentation at NASKO will be the beginning of a new canonical view of content and carrier and ….

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 4-5.

Friday, 6 Jun

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 6-7.

Saturday, 7 Jun

Roy Harris, The Semantics of Science (London: Continuum, 2005).

Read chapter 8-9 and App. 1 “Einstein on science and reality” and App. 2 “Heisenberg on language.” Finished. Fits in well with my views of science.

Highly recommended.

Saturday – Sunday, 23-24 June

Corry, Richard. “Causal Realism and the Laws of Nature.” Philosophy of Science 73 (3), July 2006: 261-276.

Sunday, 24 June

Smiraglia, Richard P. and Gregory H. Leazer. “Derivative Bibliographic Relationships: The Work Relationship in Global Bibliographic Database.” JASIS 50 (6), 1999: 493-504.

Cited by Tillett, B. B. “Bibliographical Relationships.” In Bean & Green (2001), amongst many other places, which I’m re-reading closely for my Topic Maps work.

Interesting empirical data on extent, prevalence and size of bibliographic families, types of relationships and their prevalence, and some data on characteristics of progenitor works and the correlation of these characteristics on the size and shape of a bibliographic family.

Monday, 25 Jun

Hjørland, Birger, and Jeppe Nicolaisen. 2004. Scientific and scholarly classifications are not “naïve”: a comment to Begthol [sic]. Knowledge Organization 31, no. 1: 55-61.

Beghtol, Clare L. 2004. Response to Hjørland and Nicolaisen. Knowledge Organization 31, no. 1: 62-63.

Nicolaisen, Jeppe, and Birger Hjørland. 2004. A rejoinder to Beghtol (2004). Knowledge Organization 31, no. 3: 199-201.

Thanks to Kristina for pointing out in a comment on last week’s post that these follow-ups exist regarding Beghtol’s use of the term “naïve.” Always nice to see smart people have already thought the same things that I notice.

Mann, Thomas. “The Peloponnesian War and the Future of Reference, Cataloging, and Scholarship in Research Libraries.” [pdf here]

I think is Mann’s most balanced piece (lately) so far. It has been getting a lot of play including a nice write-up by David Weinberger.

Well worth the read no matter which side of the controlled vocabulary / tagging debate you come down on. [I cannot believe I just wrote that. Perhaps I should say that if you believe there is said debate then you absolutely need to read it. If you are with most of us who believe they both have a time and place, and that may they might even serve to describe the same entity, then reading it is also a good idea.]

Introna, Lucas D. “The (im)possibility of ethics in the information age.” Information and Organization 12, 2002: 71-84.

Cited by Kemp (NASKO 2007) “Classifying marginalized people, …”, p. 59, but I was really more drawn to it by its title and not by its use as a citation.

Wow!

Written about at length here.

Tuesday, 26 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “A Summary of the Treatment of Bibliographic Relationships in Cataloging Rules.” Library Resources & Technical Services 35 (4), Oct 1991: 393-405.

2nd in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that.

Wednesday, 27 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “A Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships.” Library Resources & Technical Services 35 (2), Apr 1991: 151-158.

1st in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Re-read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that. First read 25-26 Jan 07.

I also read a bunch of articles about Topic Maps, but I will spare you since I want no one as confused as I ended up. I actually thing I have a decent grasp in them conceptually (as a beginner, anyway) but all the articles are using assorted versions of the standard, or the DTD vs. the schema, and so on, which makes it real difficult when you start actually writing syntax and expecting validation.

If you want TM references let me know but most are available on the open Web.

Thursday, 28 Jun

Tillett, Barbara B. “Bibliographic Relationships: An Empirical Study of the LC Machine-Readable Records.” Library Resources & Technical Services 36 (2), Apr 1992: 162-188.

4th in a series of 4 articles based on Tillett’s dissertation.

Read for Topic Maps and GP cause I’m geeky like that. Yes, I skipped the 3rd article for now, “The History of Linking Devices.” I will read it but it serves no purpose for my Topic Maps assignment.

I did bring the following home today, though, to trace some of the references she made in her articles:

Tillett, Barabara Ann Barnett. Bibliographic Relationships: Towards a Conceptual Structure of Bibliographic Information used in Cataloging. Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1987.

Crawford, Walt. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large 7 (8), July 2007 [pdf]

Friday, 29 Jun

Pepper, Steve and Geir Ove Grønmo. Towards a General Theory of Scope. 2002.

For Topic Maps.

Saturday, 30 Jun

Kauffman, Bill. Bye, Bye, Miss American Empire; Or, the sweet smell of secession. Orion July/Augusut 2007.

A very interesting article on the topic of secession as it makes it way back into conversation in the US. [I only mean interesting in the broadest and vaguest of senses; I am making no value judgements with its use.]

Found at 3 quarks daily.

Monday, 18 June

Hjørland, Birger. “Semantics and Knowledge Organization.” ARIST 41 (2007): 367-405.

Cited by Zhang, J. (2007). Ontology and the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1897

As much as I need to summarize this for myself I have run out of time, so:

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective (from intro, 367).

It is fairly reassuring to know that I have read about half of the sources he cites as “addressing semantic issues in KO and IS” on p. 370.

It is less reassuring, on one hand, to have this and particularly the other Hjørland article below reinforce my belief that Information Science is not a science. On the other, it is nice to know that someone with far more stature in the field feels the same way. [By the way, I also do not believe that most of modern experimental physics is science, but for different reasons. These views are when I am using "science" in a narrow sense.]

Houston, Ronald D. and Glynn Harmon. “Vannevar Bush and Memex.” ARIST 41 (2007): 55-92.

Stumbled over when copying the previous article above.

Actually quite good. I was really quite torn with myself as I was copying this, but I knew I ought to make the effort to learn a bit more.

Karen, I highly commend it to you. Also commended to others but Karen has been the one here making me think deeper about my views on Bush and AWMT.

This review examines the history, historiography, influences, and apparent misunderstandings surrounding Vannevar Bush’s memex concept and discusses the the manner in which the literatures of information science and other areas have cited the memex and its central idea of knowledge management (KM) by associative trails. The review also challenges the central memex premise that the mind works exclusively through associative thinking by reviewing some competing psychological movements and theories that emerged before and after Bush framed the memex concept (1st paragraph of intro, 55).

The article focuses on Bush’s distinction of personal KM and shared KM in the memex as a primary contribution. It also takes pains to point out Bush’s subsequent downplaying of the technological side and his emphasis on associative trails/thinking.

To provide a short[er] overview I will list the section headings: Introduction; Bush on the Memex; Challenges to Bush’s Associative Thinking Premise; Interpretations of the Memex Legacy; Some Early Reactions to the Memex; Positive Reactions to the Memex: The 1960s and 1970s; The Memex Inspires: 1962 Onward; Apparent Misinterpretations: 1965 Onward; The Memex in ARIST, 1966-2005; The Hand of Mammon: 1985 Onward; Vannevar Bush Reanimated; Memex Influence on Shared KM and the World Wide Web, 1993; The Influence of Memex on Literary Theory; Some Recent Influence of AWMT on Marketing Thought; Memex in the Library; Influence of Memex on Education; Summary and Conclusions; and Epilogue.

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:

“The memex concept and its underlying assumption that the mind works only or essentially through associative reasoning have had a broad, enduring impact throughout information science” (55). Can you say, “Understated?”

“On one hand, associationism has proved to be enormously successful in explaining many thought processes and in providing a basis for hyperlinking and Web technologies; as a consequence, the current task is often seen to consist in building on that associationist infrastructure. On the other hand, some observers have argued that new technologies and approaches are needed to compensate for the shortcomings of Web associationism” (60).

“The memex’s legacy also rests in part on the subsequent conflation of its analog ideas with their digital realizations some decades later” (emphasis in original, 61). I’ll leave it to you to read the article and find out Bush’s views on digital computers, but this is a key point.

“In other words, Bush appears to have served as something of a godparent to the godparents of Berners-Lee, the father of the Web” (68). Please notice the relationship here; it is neither direct nor lineally descendant.

“As documented in the pages of ARIST, then, authors writing about some 25 information science topical areas have acknowledged the memex. In some cases this was simply paying homage to Bush’s notion of the memex, largely as a matter of scholarly ritualism” (72). Oh, yes, because scholarly ritualism lends serious credence and authority to an argument. Michael Gorman, please come smack me down for having the audacity to doubt that scholarly ritualism serves any real intellectual work in the transmission of ideas and knowledge.

“First, we can safely say that the legacies of Bush and his memex endure and remain positive despite their 60-year journey over rocky roads. Although controversies may continue about whether Bush’s concepts or technologies were original, or about his true place in history, his AWMT article retains its inspirational magic” (81). While inspiration is a mighty fine and important thing, magic has no place in IS as a discipline; notice the second letter in that acronym. The art and science of information science need to work together to provide the illusion of magic and wonder for the user, when possible. And while we are users of our own systems and need to be inspired, those of us working in this area have already “peeked behind the curtain” and need to finally fully step behind it. Magic has little place back here.

“Second, although some textbooks since 1995 have tended to credit AWMT as a key root or origin of information science, personal computers, the Internet, the Web, and hypertext, that position distorts the historical record” (81). Amen! Read the article to get more perspective on this.

“Breakthoughs often consist of new syntheses or Gestalten that are more than the sum of their parts: The memex qualifies as such a breakthough” (82). Read the article to find out why I scribbled “kind of humorous, considering …” in the margin.

“Sixth, as argued earlier, authors who cite Bush, AWMT, or the memex need to do so less ritualistically, more critically, and for substantive reasons” (83).

I highly recommend this article; in particular, to LIS students or to anyone who thinks they need to drop a Bush citation in something. I am glad I took the time to read it and have no doubt that I will revisit it at some point.

And while my views on Bush and the memex are quite a bit more nuanced now than prior to reading this, I will still make fun of you if you simply add a ritualistic or uncritical reference to Bush in something. That is perhaps all I ever really meant, but this article has given me a much clearer idea of what constitutes an uncritical reference.

Tuesday, 19 June

Dewdney, Patricia and Gillian Michell. “Asking “Why” Questions in the Reference Interview: A Theoretical Justification.” Library Quarterly 67 (1), 1997: 50-71.

Citation provided to me by Christina Pikas via email 17 June due to our comments re theories of communication back on my David Bade LC WG posts, in particular for the Grice reference. She says I “opened up a bag of worms with this one” but she also knows I like to be schooled. Thanks, Christina.

This is a valuable article, which if it had been assigned in my reference class I might not be saying things like, “We really never discussed the reference interview.” Of course, this is a small part of reference interviewing, or so I imagine, since it only deals with “why” questions.

Christina “assigned” it to me due to the Grice reference and the accompanying section on “Cooperative Discourse” (55-57).

… the preceding analysis drawn from linguistics, philosophy, and cognitive science shows that “why” questions are unlikely to work well in the reference interview because they are perceived by the user as ambiguous, intrusive, or irrelevant. Furthermore, because “why” questions invite false inferences, both the user and the librarian tend to violate the rules governing cooperative behavior (62).

Contextualization, neutral questioning, and help chaining are suggested solutions to the problem of “why” questions.

I do believe that these ideas are important in communication, but I also have some doubts about how relevant this is to my (attempted) critique of Bade’s attempt at communication as I said at some point in that earlier conversation. Useful reading, nonetheless.

Frohmann, Bernard P. [Really is Bernd; just using the data on the article itself.] “An Investigation of the Semantic Bases of Some Theoretical Principles of Classification Proposed by Austin and the CRG.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 4 (1), Fall 1983: 11-27.

Cited by Hjørland above with multiple references, including: “Frohmann (1983) has discussed the semantic bases and theoretical principles of some classification systems. His is one of the few papers in IS to recognize that problems in classification should be seen as problems related to semantic theories” (378).

Why, oh why does CCQ no longer have articles like this?

Demonstrates that Austin’s a priori semantics for machine-based classification is unclear and that it does not both meet the CRG’s criterion of adequacy, to which Austin subscribes, or can serve the purpose of machine retrieval.

[Criterion of adequacy "states that a necessary condition of an adequate system is that it be based upon a classification of knowledge (CRG 1955, 6)" (11). Further implications of this criterion are spelled out in the paper. Full cite for the canonical CRG paper is below.]

Looks at the semantics of the Classification Research Group (CRG) and shows that they are an a posteriori semantics; that is, “the semantic relations between terms are not given a priori but depend upon human activities. Since there is no a priori restriction upon the way human beings employ words in linguistic practices, there is no way to determine semantic relations between terms other than to look and see how people actually employ words” (13).

Then demonstrates that Austin clearly subscribes to an a apriori semantics; that is, “that there are context-free, or subject-neutral, generic relations” (19), according to which the hierarchies are given a priori by the meanings of the terms involved” (21).

A Wittgensteinian criticism is then leveled against Austin’s semantics. Frohmann points out that even if his argument is sound [I believe it is], “it does not follow that an information retrieval system cannot be both machine-compatible and adequate” (26).

Highly recommended for anyone interested in semantics of classification systems and information retrieval.

And CCQ, please ….

[Classification Research Group. "The Need for a Faceted Classification as the Basis of All Methods of Information Retrieval." UNESCO document 320/5515 (International Advisory Committee for Documentation and Terminology in Pure and Applied Science). Paris, 1955.]

Wednesday, 20 June

Beghtol, Clare. “Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between “Professional” and “Naïve” Classifications.” Knowledge Organization 30 (2), 2003: 64-73.

Cited by Smiraglia (2007) “Performance Works: ….”

Examines the purposes, methods, similarities and differences between “naïve” and “professional” classifications.

In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called “professional” classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called “naïve” classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself (abstract, 64).

Despite liking the ideas in this article, I’m still not comfortable with these labels, especially since the 2 types of classifications serve different purposes. Could not a professional in another discipline just reverse the labels? What makes classification for info retrieval more professional than classification for knowledge discovery? Just because it is what “we” have been doing for so long now? One could easily argue that classification for knowledge discovery is epistemologically superior to classification for IR, and thus more “professional.” Anyway ….

There are important ideas in this mini “naïve” classification of classifications. Yes, I think one would have to agree that this is a “naïve” classification. Read the article and you’ll understand why; in addition to the fact that it isn’t a classification for IR.

This is an initial exploration of “naïve” classifications “to see how authors characterize their purposes and what classificatory methods they use” (65). The initial list of purposes includes:

1. discover gaps in knowledge
2. fill gaps in knowledge
3. reconstruct historical situations and evidence
4. facilitate integration and communication of findings
5. suggest revisions or amplifications of accepted classifications (66)

These are not meant to be mutually exclusive and certainly not meant to be exhaustive. Examples of a “naïve” classification fitting each of these purposes is given.

Methods of construction are similar despite the differences in purposes. Beghtol claims two major implications follow from this funding.

• Need to examine whether “naïve” classifications may support information retrieval (as a purpose).
• Further comparisons will provide insights into their relationships; how different environments account for flexibility or rigidity, for one.

There are several other ideas in the paper, but I will leave it to you find them.

For those interested in classification, highly recommended.

ISO/IEC FDIS 13250-2. Information Technology — Topic Maps — Part 2: Data Model. 2005-12-16.

For Topic Maps class.

Thursday, 21 June

ISO/IEC FDIS 13250-3. Information Technology — Topic Maps — Part 3: XML Syntax. 2006-06-19.

For Topic Maps class.

Hjørland, Birger. “Fundamentals of Knowledge Organization.” Knowledge Organization. 30 (2), 2003: 87-111.

Cited by Smiraglia (2007) “Performance Works: ….”

Read this article! I do not fully agree with everything he says, but he is generally spot on.

Demonstrates that the filed has been driven by information technology and is “largely atheoretic and fragmented” and, thus, it is “difficult to sketch the more theoretical and scientific progress in this field” (88).

As a theoretical concept, “information” tends to move LIS and KO towards theories about control, feedback, coding and noise in transmitting messages, while “document” tends to move LIS towards theories about meaning, language, knowledge, epistemology and sociology. Therefore, in LIS there may be a whole paradigmatic conflict hidden in those words (90).

What an excellent analysis, and I certainly know which side of that conflict I want to work on. Such an analysis has serious implications in issues of power, control, and basic rights, also.

I love some of the distinctions that he rejects as basic methodological ones, such as machine-based methods vs. “manual” methods, or quantitative vs. qualitative methods (104). He also claims that, “In general our knowledge of how humans classify is limited” (104). As a footnote in this area (fn12) he has a comment regarding the need to record and qualitatively discuss our disagreements in the literature so that we may truly learn. Amen!

Smiraglia, Richard P. “Whither Knowledge Organization?: An Editorial.” Knowledge Organization. 33 (1), 2006: 8-10.

Found while getting the Dahlberg from last week.

OK, need to check the formatting and this has to go to press; ready or not.

Possibly another light week due to all-day on campus class (Topic Maps begins) and travel to Toronto for NASKO.

Sunday, 10 Jun

Van de Sompel, Herbert and Oren Beit-Arie. “Generalizing the OpenURL Framework beyond References to Scholarly Works.” D-Lib Magazine 7 (7/8) July/August 2001.

Pepper, Steve. The TAO of Topic Maps: Finding the Way in the Age of Infoglut.

Originally read 17 Feb 2007 for 590RO Spring 2007. Re-read for 590TML Topic Maps which starts Tuesday.

If you want some non-technical insight into what Topic Maps are this is the article to read.

Campbell, D. G., Brudin, M., MacLean, G., and Baird, C. (2007). Everything old is new again: Finding a place for knowledge structures in a satisficing world. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1896

For NASKO 2007.

Smiraglia, R. P. (2007). Performance works: Continuing to comprehend instantiation. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1910

For NASKO 2007.

Kemp, R. B. (2007). Classifying marginalized people, focusing on natural disaster survivors. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1908

For NASKO 2007.

La Barre, K. (2007). Faceted navigation and browsing features in new OPACS: A more robust solution to problems of information seekers? (extended abstract) Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1912

For NASKO 2007.

Zhang, J. (2007). Ontology and the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 1. Available: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1897

For NASKO 2007.

Monday – Tuesday, 11 – 12 Jun

Dahlberg, Ingetraut. “Knowledge Organization: A New Science?.” Knowledge Organization 33 (1), 2006: 11-19.

Cited by Smiraglia, see above.

McIlwaine, I. C. “Trends in Knowledge Organization Research.” Knowledge Organization 30 (2), 2003: 75-86.

Stumbled over while copying a different article.

Discusses the trends in research in knowledge organization for the preceding 5 years.

Wednesday – Thursday, 13 – 14 Jun

Tennis, Joesph T. “Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification.” Knowledge Organization 32 (2): 2005: 79-92.

Stumbled over while copying some of this other stuff.

It is interesting but, at least from what I keep finding, it is more conceptual work from Joe Tennis. Where are the follow on empirical studies that he lays out? Are they just left for someone else, perhaps for a grad student? I like a lot about his conceptual work over the last couple years, which includes some ideas about how to extend thesauri, this piece which actually makes use of Lakoff instead of just citing him, and so on. But all of it needs to be validated, and in several cases actually built so that it can be validated. Tennis admits that. But then seems to move on to something else. Maybe I’ll ask him about it while here in Toronto.

I did not get a chance to ask Joe about this. I could have made it perhaps, but seeing as I was having a hard time figuring out how to phrase it without sounding snarky (which is not my intent!) I just let it go.

Note: Sorry for the non-existent annotations. It was a light week as I prepped for and then attended NASIG.

Sunday, 27 May

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

Finished chap. 2.

Monday, 28 May

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

Read chap. 3.

Tennis, Joseph. “SKOS and the Ontogenesis of Vocabularies.”

Cited by Harper, Corey A. and Barbara B. Tillett. “Library of Congress Controlled Vocabularies and Their Application to the Semantic Web.” Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43 (3/4), 2007: 47-68 and: Knitting the Semantic Web (ed. Jane Greenberg and Eva Méndez) Haworth Information Press, 2007: 47-68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_04

Vizine-Goetz, Diane. “Terminology Services: Making Knowledge Organization Schemes More Accessible to People and Computers.” [pdf] OCLC Newsletter, no. 266.

Cited by Harper, Corey A. and Barbara B. Tillett. See above for full reference.

Monday – Tuesday, 28 – 29 May

CISAC. Outline for ISO Standard ISPI (International Standard Party Identifier Code) [pdf].

Cited by Harper, Corey A. and Barbara B. Tillett. See above for full reference.

Tuesday, 29 May

Fallgren, Nancy. “Brief Meeting Summary: May 9, 2007. Structures and Standards for Bibliographic Data (Chicago, IL).”

Miles, Alistair, Brian Matthews, Michael Wilson and Dan Brickley.”SKOS Core: Simple Knowledge Ogranisation for the Web.” International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications: Vocabularies in Practice. Available: http://purl.org/dcpapers/2005/Paper01

Cited by Harper, Corey A. and Barbara B. Tillett. See above for full reference.

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

Read chap. 4-5.

Wednesday, 30 May

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

Read chap. 6-8. Finished.

Sunday, 25 Mar 2007

Schmitz-Esser, Winfried. “Language of general communication and concept compatibility.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996. 11-22.

This book is very difficult to get a hold of. I could have sworn that I had blogged about receiving this book from the Library of Congress back in January, but I am unable to find any such post. I did post photos on flickr, though [1 2 3]. I had requested it via ILL in October and got it in late Jan. There are only two copies in WorldCat and only one in Open WorldCat. LCs is in both and there is a reference copy at Baker & Taylor. Surprising that I actually got it; even months later.

This was also the first book that I ever had to sign for from circulation. Kind of odd, but I was just happy to have the book in hand. My advisor didn’t even know it existed, so I shared it with her for the short period that I had it.

Friday I had to sign for a second book. This one is from Cornell University, and while there are few copies of it [9], too, I think they’re just being uppity. I asked the clerk at Circ if this was something new or if I just managed to ask for odd books and she happily concurred that it was just me.

Riesthuis, Gerhard J.A. “Theory of compatibility of information languages.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996. 23-31.

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

George Herbert, “Love”
Andrew Marvell , “To His Coy Mistress”

Monday, 25 Mar 2007

Dahlberg, Ingetraut. “The Compatibility guidelines — A re-evaluation.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996. 32-45.

Sacchanand, Chutima. “Workplace learning for information professionals in a changing information environment.” Proceedings IFLA Council and General Conference (66th : 2000 : Jerusalem), Jerusalem (Israel). [from E-LIS]

Baca, Murtha. “Practical issues in applying metadata schemas and controlled vocabularies to cultural heritage information.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 36 (3/4), 2003: 47-55.

For Representation & Organization. Very basic article, but a decent overview. I have really got to get off my rear and start writing if this is the kind of stuff that gets published. It’s not that it’s bad, because it isn’t. It’s just so very basic. Is there really a need for this kind of article, especially in this journal?

[Update: I asked my fellow students in RO Wednesday morning about their feelings about this article. Most agreed that at this point in their education it was pretty useless, but that it would make a most excellent 501 article (one of our 2 required courses). I wholeheartedly agree with that.]

Yee, Ka-Ping, Kirsten Swearingen, Kevin Li, and Marti Hearst. “Faceted metadata for image search and browsing.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Fort Lauderdale, FL: ACM Press, 2003: 401-408 [Portal] [pdf]

For Representation & Organization.

Tuesday, 27 Mar 2007

Jordan. J. and T. Hickey. “Metadata trends.” In Chen, C., ed. Global digital library development in the new millennium : fertile ground for distributed cross-disciplinary collaboration. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2001. 115-120.

Park, Taemin Kim. “Library education in information organization and access of networked resources.” Extended abstract. Same source as above. 525-526.

Cruz, José Manuel Barrueco and Thomas Krikel. (2003) “Subject description in the Academic Metadata Format.” In Proceedings VI Congreso del Capítulo Español de ISKO, Salamanca (Spain). [pdf at E-LIS]

White, Bruce and Rae Gendall. (2005) “Barriers to the use of digital information by university researchers.” In Proceedings Educause Australasia 2005, Auckland, New Zealand. [pdf at E-LIS]

This short article gives a good overview of the issues that have arisen for faculty and researchers due to the proliferation of electronic resources and tools. Most bibliographic instruction has focused on students, while the people who seriously need to understand the interaction and use of these tools are basically ignored. What is the impact on research thanks to this state of affairs?

Soergel, Dagobert. “Data models for an integrated thesaurus database.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996.47-57.

Wednesday – Thursday, 28 – 29 Mar 2007

Hillman, Diane E., Stuart A. Sutton, Jon Phipps and Ryan Laundry. (2006) “A metadata registry for vocabularies up: The NSDL Registry Project.” Submitted to Dublin Core 2006 Conference. [pdf at arxiv]

Read for Metadata Roundtable 28 March 2007.

Thursday, 29 Mar 2007

Muraszkiewicz, M., H. Rybinski and W. Struk. “Software problems of merging multilingual thesauri.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996: 11-22.

Friday, 30 Mar 2007

Gradmann, Stefan. “rdfs:frbr—Towards and implementation model for library catalogs using Semantic Web technology.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39 (3/4), 2005: 63-75. [pdf at E-LIS]

Chmielewska-Gorczyca, Ewa. “Compatibility of indexing tools in multidatabase environment.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996: 68-75.

Saturday, 31 Mar 2007

Perkins, Jody. “Marcia Zeng, PhD: From indexing to knowledge organization systems, one woman’s journey across the globe and into the future of Library and Information Science.” Journal of Internet Cataloging 7 (2), 2004: 9-18. doi:10.1300/J141v07n02_03

Stumbled over this interview while looking for something else. Found it very interesting as I have been reading several articles by Dr. Zeng recently, and she is the current chair of the ASIST Standards Committee that I serve on.

Negrini, Giliola. “Towards structural compatibility between concept systems.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996: 76-87.

Sosinska-Kalata, Barbara. “The Universal Decimal Classification as an international standard for knowledge organization in bibliographic databases and library catalogues.” Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995. Warsaw: Indeks-Verlag, 1996: 143-151.

Dahlberg, Ingetraut. “Philosophical foundations of conceptual ordering systems.” Advances in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3 (1991): Documentary languages and databases. Papers from the Rome Conference Dec. 3-4, 1990. Frankfurt: Indeks Verlag, 1991: 103-119.

Olson, Hope A. “Reading “Primitive Classification” and misreading cultures: The metaphysics of social and logical classification.” 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: 3-9.

Probably the last Hope Olson I will read. I’m tired of wasting 95% of the time doing so. And the 5% that isn’t a waste I generally already know. So maybe it really is a complete waste for me. I think she, at least, summed it up pretty well for me in these 2 sentences if one substitutes “Olson’s work” for Primitive Classification and “Olson” for “Durkheim and Mauss”:

Having found these significant flaws in Primitive Classification it seems that its study should simply be discouraged. However, Durkheim and Mauss also offer some insights that point toward ways of moderating the culturally specific nature of classification (7).

So, there is value in Hope Olson’s work, at least probably for others. For me, not so much. I wish that were not the case. I was hoping for a lucid and engaging voice of critique of our systems of organization.

I had started a separate post about the Olson things I read, but I don’t know if it’ll ever get finished. I really would like to finish it, but with very limited time lately it certainly is nowhere near the top of my priorities.

Beghtol, Clare. “A Whole, its kinds, and its parts.” 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: 313-319.

Sunday, 11 Feb

Henricus Cornelius Agrippa. Declamation on the nobility and preeminence of the female sex. Translated and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe series. Read pp. 13-65.

The resemblance [of sons to mothers] is often evident in their physical appearance but it is always present in their character: if the mothers are stupid, the sons are stupid; if the mothers are wise, the sons breathe wisdom. It happens otherwise with fathers, who, even if intelligent, very often beget stupid sons or who, stupid themselves, produce wise sons, provided that their mother is wise (57).

Tuesday, 12 Feb

Finished the above book. It is actually pretty good, although I have 2 small complaints. First, is the that translator/editor claims that the book is primarily for undergraduates. Maybe. It is extemely heavily footnoted; thankfully. But if we are to believe any of the stories told about people’s reading habits that will be a definite turnoff. I am certainly not saying it is above undergraduates; that is far from the truth. I am only wondering about whether they would engage with it. It is actually a fast read, especially if you avoid the footnotes, unlike me. Second, it is heavily biased towards beautiful, upper class, European, white women, and not necessarily all women. But considering it was delivered as a speech in 1509 and first published in 1529, it is a master work and an extremely important early work on “the querelle des femmes, the “Woman Question.”" Some more quotes:

Women, to the contrary, have invented all the liberal arts, every virtue and benefit, which the very names of the arts and virtues—being feminine in gender—show better than anything. Another remarkable fact is that even the terrestrial globe itself is called by women’s names, the nymph Asia, Agenor’s daughter Europa, Epaphys’s daughter Libya, also called Africa (76).

But in order that no one doubt that women can do everything men do, let us show it by examples; we shall discover that there has never been any exceptional or virtuous deed of any kind performed by men that has not been executed by women with equal brilliance (79).

Are not philosophers, mathematicians, and astrologers quite often inferior to country women in their predictions and diagnoses? Is it not often the case that a small, aging midwife outstrips a doctor (84)?

But since the excessive tyranny of men prevails over divine right and natural laws, the freedom that was once accorded to women is in our day obstructed by unjust laws, suppressed by custom and usage, reduced to nothing by education. … And so these laws compel women to submit to men, as conquered before conquerors, and that without reason or necessity natural or divine, but under the pressure of custom, education, chance, or some occasion favorable to tyranny (94-5).

And from the conclusion:

I have shown the preeminence of the female sex according to her name, order, place, and material of her creation, and the status superior to man she has received from God. Moreover, I have demonstrated this with respect to religion, nature, and human laws, and [in each case] through diverse authorities, reasons, and examples (96).

Amen, brother. “Down with the patriarchy!”

Neelameghan, A. “Lateral relationships in multicultural, multilingual databases in the spiritual and religious domains: The OM Information Service.” In Bean & Green, Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 185-198.

More Foucault.

Eliot, George. Silas Marner: Weaver of Raveloe. Read all introductory matter and first two chapters.

Wed-Thursday, 14-15 Feb

Finished Foucault. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Thankfully! I’m sure there was something of value in there; but I’m damned if I know what it was.

More Eliot.

Friday, 16 Feb.

Finished Silas Marner. An excellent book. I am definitely going to have to read more Eliot having only read Middlemarch and now this. The Introduction by Q. D. Leavis was also quite good. Eliot’s psychological insights are no less insightful here than in Middlemarch.

His life had reduced itself to the functions of weaving and hoarding, without any contemplation of an end towards which the functions tended. The same sort of process has perhaps been undergone by wiser men, when they have been cut off from faith and love — only, instead of a loom and a heap of guineas, they have had some erudite reasearch, some ingenious project, or some well-knit theory (20).

Hmmm…?

A dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters a desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic (39).

And I dare say, quite a few not-so-dull minds also.

Satija, M. P. “Relationships in Ranganathan’s Colon Classification.” In Bean & Green, Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 199-210.

Saturday, 17 Feb

Mitchell, Joan S. “Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification System.” In Bean & Green, Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 211-226. Which also means I have now finished reading this book. I will have more to say about it in the future, as this is the book that I am reviewing for Representation & Organization this semester.

Garsol, Lars Marius. “What are topic maps.” For Representation & Organization.

Durusau, Patrick. “Babel and topic maps.” [pdf] For Representation & Organization.

Pepper, Steve. “The TAO of topic maps: Finding the way in the age of infoglut.” For Representation & Organization.

Martel, Yann. Life of Pi. Started on Read this novel, which my friend, Mo, gave me last October. Pretty good so far, but no George Eliot. Holy crap! I just read a whole book in one day, and all those other things, too.

Holy balls! I’ve read 8 books already this year. This is absolutely incredible for me. I guess it’s time to turn to the 400-600 page books at this point; those will properly slow me down, no doubt. Or I could actually start producing for my classes instead of just reading.