Debbie and Duane, (01)
Both of you seem to imply that there is no clear definition.
According to Debbie, (02)
> To me, does not necessarily mean folksonomy is a slur. Does the term
> imply an ad-hoc unstructured or immature version of a formal ontology?
> Maybe on-the-fly the authors don't have or need an official term yet.
> It is what it is, like the rumors of no native american word for art,
> or no eskimo word for snow, "things" or "processes" that are so
> integral that so far, there has never been a need for them to be
> described from outside in a comprehensive overview.
>
> When writing formal specifications, it may be neccessary for terms to
> be applied by others outside a field. In this sense, a folksonomy
> might be more like an outline or a sketch. Sketches and outlines are
> hard to make also. (03)
If it is a sketch or outline, then call it that. But sometimes,
it might be intended as a taxonomy, a glossary, a type hierarchy,
a lexicon, a thesaurus, or whatever. But for one reason or another,
it doesn't meet all the requirements. (04)
My suggestion: If it is an informal or unstructured version of
some X, which doesn't meet all the requirements for a proper X,
then just call it an "unstructured X" or an "informal X". (05)
The word "folk" is used in a positive sense in "folklore" and
in a negative sense in "folk psychology." That would make the
word "folksonomy" doubly ambiguous: we're not sure what it means
or whether the speaker has a positive or a negative attitude. (06)
For such terms, I recommend the refrigerator policy: (07)
When in doubt, throw it out. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|