[Sigia-l] Blasphemy: Ontology is Overrated?

[Alexander Johannesen]

James Melzer <jamesmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, Library of Congress maintains a whole slew of different
> classification schemes. I don't think any of them is technically an
> ontology.

Yes, they're not ontology, and if you ask any librarian they wouldn't
call it such either. In fact, if you look into the details of LCSH
you'll find it's not a taxonomy eiher; it is a complex ongoing growing
thing, and any critisism of its complexity is truly deserved. But
then, critisism of something librarians themselves have been critical
of for years is hardly newsworthy. Mr Shirky has several grave
misconceptions in his own understanding of ontologies (or at least,
his examples of ontologies), so I'll take this rave with a pinch of
salt.

And why didn't he ask the librarians of what their alternatives are?
They have many really interesting things going on, some of them
surpasses his notion of taxonomy and ontology by a few hundred years
or so.

Alex,
not impressed
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________