Re: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
Jon --
This is actually the source that I most had in mind as a resource to get
our enterprise more firmly situated on firm, practical, underpinnings:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/lcsh.html
Classification systems like UCD, Dewey, and even Library of Congress
Classification System ( http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html )
are by their nature branching taxonomies, since they are designed to
resolve to a single leaf level for any item (book, web page, whatever)
because they are meant to point to a single physical location of an
item on a shelf (originally).
Subject heading lists, on the other hand, form a more unlimited lattice
or lattice-like structure, since an item can have any number of subject
headings pointing to it. Libraries generally (always?) use both a
classification system and a subject heading list. The reason I put the
question mark in the sentence above is that it has now been 20 years
since I was a working librarian, and I haven't tried all that hard to keep
up with the field.
Doug McDavid
Certified Executive Consultant
Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
Professional Development - BIS, Americas
Member of IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu> on 03/18/2001 08:00:25 AM
To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Subject: SUO: Site Of Uberty (SOU)
Douglas McDavid wrote:
>
> Jon --
>
> I happen to agree with you, of course. But I've been informed in no
> uncertain terms, several times in previous weeks, that ontology has
> absolutely nothing to do with library (bibliographic) classification.
>
> Doug McDavid
>
> Certified Executive Consultant
> Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
>
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>@ieee.org on 03/17/2001 07:33:59
PM
> To: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Subj: SUO: Site Of Interest (SOI)
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Here's one that looks like it's up our alley:
>
> http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
>
> | This classification was prepared as a piece of
> | the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) which
> | covers all knowledge in a fairly uniform way.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Doug,
Hmmm. Y'know, I was not even thinking of all that busyness at the time.
I ran into that scheme'o'things mat'mat'cal (= (mat^2)cal?) when I was
looking up what had been weblished lately on "differential extensions",
and I guess what I had in mined at the time was the recent discussions
about "a(n) SUO BookSelf", to which this scheme'o'things bib'graph'cal
just struck me fancy like it might be relevant. Owse about you? --
yes, it's re'TIR'cal ...
By the way, there is the rest of that scheme -- on beyond math --
I just thought that a sample to the wise would be sufficient ...
http://www.oasis-open.org/
http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/sgml-xml.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/classification.html
http://www.ams.org/mathweb/Classif/RZhClassification.html
For yy from y0:
| Illud autem existens in anima quod est signum rei,
| ex quo propositio mentalis componitur ad modum
| quo propositio vocalis componitur ex vocibus,
| aliquando vocatur intentio animae, aliquando
| conceptus animae, aliquando passio animae,
| aliquando similitudo rei.
|
| William of Ockham, 'Summa Totius Logicae', 1.12.
Jon Awbrey
Still, a funny thing about librarians:
They always seem to get the last word.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤