So wrong

The New School of Ontologies is just so off the mark. Not that social classification isn't valuable, but a folksonomy is *not* an ontology. And facets...my goodness. The article reads like a jumble of classification buzzwords stirred once and regurgitated.

Ontologies are semantically-connected nodes - there's meaningful types of relationships between terms (has-a, is-a, requires, and lots lots more). Free tagging doesn't generate any semantic relationship at all.

It's interesting as the folksonomy meme drives more people to talk about IA issues how little many people know about IA concepts...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is a much better take on

This is a much better take on the matter.
http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

.ales

facets?

I'm interested in your comment about facets...

"And facets...my goodness."

I use Travis Wilson's Facetmap regularly now and think faceted browsing is terrific, but other than a handful of sites that use Endeca, I'm not sure how many people use them.

Is your comment a reaction to facets, to facets as described in the article, both? I am curious to undestand how other IAs perceive this approach and what they think. tia.

-Ted

Facets

Two things: facets are invaluable in the IA toolkit (not that they are a silver bullet, but that they are a core classification tool)

Secondly, my reaction was the buzzword mashup of classification terms used without much understanding in the linked article.

We've posted quite a few links on classification here:
http://iaslash.org/taxonomy/term/47