[Sigia-l] Classification is an essential skill

[Jonathan Broad]

I'm going to keep calling you out until you respond, Derek. :)  

I hope our fellow listmembers respect that I'm trying to do it on your
own terms, and in a spirit of friendly debate.

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 15:15, Derek R wrote:

> Of course classification is an essential skill. One must understand,
> however, *how* a skill is 'evenly applied' to avoid having it become a
> crutch.

I recognize that this admission is something akin to 'moderateness' for
you, and applaud you for it.

However--it is a pretty obvious insight.  Anyone trained in cataloging
Oor indexing heard a dozen illustrations of this problem on the first
day of class.

> An Information Architect would be wise not to lose sight of
> *indexicality* -- that people make sense of a remark, sign, or
> particular 'category' by reference to the context in which it occurs
> ('difference' as formation agent). 

You miss the point!  *Of course* classification can't ignore the
idiosyncratic aspects of information production.  That's the whole art
of cataloging in a nutshell--and it's not easy.  

But the job of classification is to "re-present" information, and create
a surrogate for it (metadata, catalog record, "navigation").  

This means putting it in a more refined context, structured in a way
that lends itself to be retrieved when aggregated with many similar, but
irrelevant information.  I.e. some contexts are better than others for
particular purposes!

If you don't understand why that's necessary, then I don't believe
you've ever tried to organize a large volume of information before.

> >| I simply do not agree with the view
> >| that everyone has a completely different
> >| view of the world
> 
> You'd have to be a maniac to believe that, Gerry.

You'd (literally) have to be a schizophrenic *not* to.  Gerry said
*completely different*.  Does everyone have a different point of view? 
Of course.  

For language to even function, however, significantly more than half of
our collective worldviews must align somehow.  If I say, "It's sunny" or
"Pass the pepper", you know exactly what I'm saying--yet these simple
utterances must depend on startling complex common assumptions.

For lengthy philosophical proof of this, see John Davidson, "Truth and
Interpretation".  I forget the particular essay.  Wittgenstein's
refutation of the sensicality of a "private language" is also germane,
but I hawk him too often on this list...

> Information Architects must not become over-zealous (for instance, in
> use of categorization) and take the user/person *for-granted.* 

Concrete examples? With a full explanation of how they transgress your
dicta, of course.  Otherwise: straw man.
> 
> All is attention. People deploy their *own* common-sense categories to
> make sense of their world. Each individual has their *own* 'form of
> life:'

And that form of life must be shared, for the *most* part, by other
individuals.  Without becoming any less 'their own'.

> >| It would be nice if we could move 
> >| beyond this ground-level debate
> 
> I think it's important to expose 'background assumptions' that have been
> accepted as reality, without attention, for a long time. Innovation can
> only occur through *attention* -- otherwise there is stagnation and
> marketing of singular ideas.

No, *this is* a ground-level discussion.  These background assumptions
are no one's, but are instead your own person bogeyman.  I wish you'd
have more respect for the general astuteness of your fellow listmembers,
as this kind of harangue only casts you in a bad light.

A more interesting discussion would be how classification has changed
now that it is being "directly consumed" by users of electronic
information.  This is a massive shift, of course, and changes the role
of "information gatekeepers" proportionately.

Cordially,
Jonathan Broad