<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Fred 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress</link>
	<description>Cosmos, Taxis, and the Future of Bibiliographic Control</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:53:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The magical land of Ontopia by Louie Senders</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30&#038;cpage=1#comment-1971</link>
		<dc:creator>Louie Senders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30#comment-1971</guid>
		<description>So if I was looking for something about someone or a concept that crossed the boundaries between two or more subjects then I should look for the chassis of the matter rather than the influences that carried it to where it was finally going to end up?
For example Jean Arp, ultimately an abstract artist renowned for sculptors using various media, but previous a founder member of the Dada movement, and also by association, as he worked with Max Ernst, could also be looked for under Bauhaus Modernism pre-Nazi Germany.
In this case the wheels are in the shape of Modern Dadas, but the chassis of the matter is abstract?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if I was looking for something about someone or a concept that crossed the boundaries between two or more subjects then I should look for the chassis of the matter rather than the influences that carried it to where it was finally going to end up?<br />
For example Jean Arp, ultimately an abstract artist renowned for sculptors using various media, but previous a founder member of the Dada movement, and also by association, as he worked with Max Ernst, could also be looked for under Bauhaus Modernism pre-Nazi Germany.<br />
In this case the wheels are in the shape of Modern Dadas, but the chassis of the matter is abstract?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Code4lib 2010 Asheville &#8211;  Event Schedule by Jodi Schneider</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=116&#038;cpage=1#comment-1824</link>
		<dc:creator>Jodi Schneider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=116#comment-1824</guid>
		<description>Thanks! Might want to mention it the shared feed on the code4lib and/or code4libcon mailing lists. Guess that means I&#039;ll see you there?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks! Might want to mention it the shared feed on the code4lib and/or code4libcon mailing lists. Guess that means I&#8217;ll see you there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dashed suspicuous&#8230; by dsp13</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=28&#038;cpage=1#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>dsp13</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 21:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=28#comment-195</guid>
		<description>whoops sorry to ask such stupid questions: 1. read the Mary Dykstra article, 2. read your Jan 27th post...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>whoops sorry to ask such stupid questions: 1. read the Mary Dykstra article, 2. read your Jan 27th post&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The magical land of Ontopia by dsp13</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30&#038;cpage=1#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>dsp13</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30#comment-193</guid>
		<description>Very thought provoking indeed - thank you. There seem to be two insights here, and I wonder if they&#039;ve got a bit tangled. Sorry about the way I labour what follows. I wish I had the magic touch.

On the one hand, you emphasise that subject headings are to do with the way in which &lt;i&gt;documents&lt;/i&gt; are &lt;i&gt;about&lt;/i&gt; things. Given a set of documents, one might imagining classifying each document by fixing for it the appropriate set of subject headings, each subject heading naming a thing the document was &#039;about&#039;. This involves looking at the document. One might in theory imagine this being done without any hierarchy being defined between subjects, so that the classifier was required to ask whether a particular book was about car wheels &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; whether it was about cars &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; whether it was about vehicles, and so on. Lots of judgement and looking at documents involved here! Once aboutness had been determined for each (document, subject heading), one might then imagine inducing a subject heading Broader Term relation in which 
sBt iff for all d (d about t implies d about s). 
This is clearly transitive. Note that on this document-centred view adding a new document to the collection could invalidate a previously valid Broader Term relation. To adapt our example, suppose that every book in the collection judged to be about car tyres had been judged to be about cars and had also been judged to be about vehicles.  However a new acquisition &lt;i&gt;How to grow flowers in car tyres&lt;/i&gt; was judged by the classifer to be about car tyres but not about vehicles. We would then need to discard vehicles as a Broader Term of car tyres (and also discard - depending whether we judge the acquisition to be about cars - either cars as a Broader Term of car tyres, or vehicles as a Broader Term of cars)

On the other hand, as you say, once one has a class-based ontology one can define a concept-based Broader Term relation as the &#039;combination of all the different types of hierarchical relationship&#039; within that ontology, i.e. taking 
sCt iff (t is-part-of s, or t is-a-kind-of s, or etc.) 
this alternative Broader Term relation can be defined as 
D=the transitive closure of C. 
In this labour there&#039;s no looking at documents, only thinking hard about concepts. 

Now, you say, plausibly, there&#039;s some connection between B and D. What is it? 

D will be rather weak, i.e. it will hold fairly often and surely more often than B. That is, it seems implausible to me that sDt implies sBt.

But maybe your line of thought is that any subject heading broader than relation B induced from aboutness must be somehow explicable in terms of conceptual relations. 

That is, the connection goes the other way round: sBt implies sDt. Which seems plausible.

Am I confused?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very thought provoking indeed &#8211; thank you. There seem to be two insights here, and I wonder if they&#8217;ve got a bit tangled. Sorry about the way I labour what follows. I wish I had the magic touch.</p>
<p>On the one hand, you emphasise that subject headings are to do with the way in which <i>documents</i> are <i>about</i> things. Given a set of documents, one might imagining classifying each document by fixing for it the appropriate set of subject headings, each subject heading naming a thing the document was &#8216;about&#8217;. This involves looking at the document. One might in theory imagine this being done without any hierarchy being defined between subjects, so that the classifier was required to ask whether a particular book was about car wheels <i>and</i> whether it was about cars <i>and</i> whether it was about vehicles, and so on. Lots of judgement and looking at documents involved here! Once aboutness had been determined for each (document, subject heading), one might then imagine inducing a subject heading Broader Term relation in which<br />
sBt iff for all d (d about t implies d about s).<br />
This is clearly transitive. Note that on this document-centred view adding a new document to the collection could invalidate a previously valid Broader Term relation. To adapt our example, suppose that every book in the collection judged to be about car tyres had been judged to be about cars and had also been judged to be about vehicles.  However a new acquisition <i>How to grow flowers in car tyres</i> was judged by the classifer to be about car tyres but not about vehicles. We would then need to discard vehicles as a Broader Term of car tyres (and also discard &#8211; depending whether we judge the acquisition to be about cars &#8211; either cars as a Broader Term of car tyres, or vehicles as a Broader Term of cars)</p>
<p>On the other hand, as you say, once one has a class-based ontology one can define a concept-based Broader Term relation as the &#8216;combination of all the different types of hierarchical relationship&#8217; within that ontology, i.e. taking<br />
sCt iff (t is-part-of s, or t is-a-kind-of s, or etc.)<br />
this alternative Broader Term relation can be defined as<br />
D=the transitive closure of C.<br />
In this labour there&#8217;s no looking at documents, only thinking hard about concepts. </p>
<p>Now, you say, plausibly, there&#8217;s some connection between B and D. What is it? </p>
<p>D will be rather weak, i.e. it will hold fairly often and surely more often than B. That is, it seems implausible to me that sDt implies sBt.</p>
<p>But maybe your line of thought is that any subject heading broader than relation B induced from aboutness must be somehow explicable in terms of conceptual relations. </p>
<p>That is, the connection goes the other way round: sBt implies sDt. Which seems plausible.</p>
<p>Am I confused?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dashed suspicuous&#8230; by dsp13</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=28&#038;cpage=1#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>dsp13</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 00:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=28#comment-192</guid>
		<description>As you say, very very suggestive... Where can one learn more about what was done in 1988? Approx. what proportion of the BT links in the dataset as a whole have never been validated since then?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you say, very very suggestive&#8230; Where can one learn more about what was done in 1988? Approx. what proportion of the BT links in the dataset as a whole have never been validated since then?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should such a thing exist by Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32&#038;cpage=1#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 12:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32#comment-176</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the reply, Simon. Still not sure since to really tell whether a certain description of one level is acceptable requires knowing what the others are. And so far, I have seen at least four descriptions (probably more) of the DIKW pyramid that are in no way compatible.

When a diagram as simple as a triangle is divided into a few slices and labeled it rarely provides much expressive power. And considering the transformations needed to move data to information to knowledge to wisdom is left out of the DIKW diagram, and that the exact same diagram can be used to express theories that are incompatible, I have no love for that graphic. I feel that it obscures far more than it illuminates.

While the individual levels of the triangle are very important, I think it is the missing elements from the diagrams--the transformations, all social aspects, and much of the individual--which is the more important. 

I certainly agree that your title can be read in various ways, which I greatly appreciate.  Thanks, again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the reply, Simon. Still not sure since to really tell whether a certain description of one level is acceptable requires knowing what the others are. And so far, I have seen at least four descriptions (probably more) of the DIKW pyramid that are in no way compatible.</p>
<p>When a diagram as simple as a triangle is divided into a few slices and labeled it rarely provides much expressive power. And considering the transformations needed to move data to information to knowledge to wisdom is left out of the DIKW diagram, and that the exact same diagram can be used to express theories that are incompatible, I have no love for that graphic. I feel that it obscures far more than it illuminates.</p>
<p>While the individual levels of the triangle are very important, I think it is the missing elements from the diagrams&#8211;the transformations, all social aspects, and much of the individual&#8211;which is the more important. </p>
<p>I certainly agree that your title can be read in various ways, which I greatly appreciate.  Thanks, again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should such a thing exist by ses</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32&#038;cpage=1#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>ses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 06:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32#comment-174</guid>
		<description>Mark = 
  Wisdom is the final level of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~nsharma/dikw_origin.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Data=Information-Knowledge-Wisdom&lt;/a&gt; (DIKW) pyramid.  Wisdom in this sense is the set of likely consequences of performing an action.

The title can be read two other ways: subjunctive (What would characterize a &quot;Wisdom Organization System&quot;, should such a thing exist?), and as a prediction from the periodic table of the other phrases.

If such as thing were to  exist, it should be callled a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Copybook&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark =<br />
  Wisdom is the final level of the <a href="http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~nsharma/dikw_origin.htm" rel="nofollow">Data=Information-Knowledge-Wisdom</a> (DIKW) pyramid.  Wisdom in this sense is the set of likely consequences of performing an action.</p>
<p>The title can be read two other ways: subjunctive (What would characterize a &#8220;Wisdom Organization System&#8221;, should such a thing exist?), and as a prediction from the periodic table of the other phrases.</p>
<p>If such as thing were to  exist, it should be callled a <a href="http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm" rel="nofollow">Copybook</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should such a thing exist by Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32&#038;cpage=1#comment-172</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 17:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32#comment-172</guid>
		<description>Even though KO is basically what I do I think it is an idiotic term, nor do I think true knowledge is organizable in any real sense.  We can sort of point and &quot;draw&quot; really vague maps of the territory, but that is it.

Since you asked whether wisdom organization &quot;should&quot; exist, I am wondering how you think it might even be possible.  What is wisdom, in this sense, and how can it possibly be organized?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even though KO is basically what I do I think it is an idiotic term, nor do I think true knowledge is organizable in any real sense.  We can sort of point and &#8220;draw&#8221; really vague maps of the territory, but that is it.</p>
<p>Since you asked whether wisdom organization &#8220;should&#8221; exist, I am wondering how you think it might even be possible.  What is wisdom, in this sense, and how can it possibly be organized?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should such a thing exist by Kristina</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32&#038;cpage=1#comment-167</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 15:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=32#comment-167</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll have to think about that, but it&#039;s too bad OWL is already something else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll have to think about that, but it&#8217;s too bad OWL is already something else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The magical land of Ontopia by Kristina</title>
		<link>http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30&#038;cpage=1#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 17:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30#comment-157</guid>
		<description>bwah ha ha ha!

I have a question. Is a unicorn a doorbell?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>bwah ha ha ha!</p>
<p>I have a question. Is a unicorn a doorbell?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
