{"id":146,"date":"2005-06-20T19:41:20","date_gmt":"2005-06-20T23:41:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/2005\/06\/20\/on-overrated-ontologies\/"},"modified":"2005-06-20T19:41:20","modified_gmt":"2005-06-20T23:41:20","slug":"on-overrated-ontologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/2005\/06\/20\/on-overrated-ontologies\/","title":{"rendered":"On Overrated Ontologies"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a915'><\/a><\/p>\n<p>More Shirky on information.<\/p>\n<p>There is a key point that gets lost when optimistic tech enthusiasts ejaculate over the glories of &#8220;alternate organizational systems&#8221; which &#8220;like the Web itself,&#8221; &#8220;let individuals create value for one another,&#8221; &#8220;often without realizing it.&#8221;  Shirky is complex enough to both make every facet of this point and to lost it in the same <a href=\"\">essay<\/a>.  The point is that ontologies are all about seek times, reliability, and parallelism.<\/p>\n<p>A good ontology is self-similar; when you reflect upon it, the ontology itself reminds you of truths you know about interrelationships between different concepts and different aspects of the world.  The best ontologies have a non-null learning curve; you get more out of it with appreciation and practice.  A good ontology is largely orthogonal; it creates deep and meaningful divisions in the unbroken flesh of raw thought.<\/p>\n<p>If I tag everything I see as quickly as possible &#8212; free association, tempered by habit &#8212; I will be far from the ideal ontology, both for myself and for reuse by (or the emergent enlightenment of) others.  <\/p>\n<p><b>Yes<\/b> we should collectively listen to the casual ways masses of anonymous  users classify things.  Better still, we should <b>teach them<\/b> ways to improve their personal classifications so that they will scale and age better.  But this does not mean we should let these masses <i>dictate<\/i> what the best classification\/ontology\/search-algorithm looks like.  <\/p>\n<p>My armchair proclamation: the best systems [for finding information] are patiently considered, organically informed but not dictated by large bodies of users, and steadily improved in ways that teach users how to effectively form the questions they didn&#8217;t know they were asking.  These systems should provide answer-sets that expand searchers&#8217; concepts of what they were looking for, and should preempt clarification when possible.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n<i>When I look for &#8220;<b><i>Georgias<\/i><\/b>&#8221; I should discover, in separate taxonomically-contextualized sections, results for the US state, the Eurasian nation, the woman&#8217;s name, and the ancient Greek sophist (see Gorgias).  Each of these should be well-identified by its place in at least one (and preferably a few named and referenced) well-conceived, self-similar ontologies.<\/i>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I have nothing against Shirky, btw.  It is the very excellence of his writing that makes it such a pleasure to take issue with it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>More Shirky on information. There is a key point that gets lost when optimistic tech enthusiasts ejaculate over the glories of &#8220;alternate organizational systems&#8221; which &#8220;like the Web itself,&#8221; &#8220;let individuals create value for one another,&#8221; &#8220;often without realizing it.&#8221; Shirky is complex enough to both make every facet of this point and to lost [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":135,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[206],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-a-la-mod"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}