[Data-modeling] Library of Congress and Dewey Classifications

[Ed Laurent]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Tim Kientzle <tim at metaweb.com> wrote:

> Using a topic for at least the top-level portion (e.g., the part to
> the left of the decimal in the Dewey Decimal system) would create a
> nice browsing option:  "All books in Dewey Decimal 303"


I'm wondering how useful the browsing option of "All books in Dewey Decimal
303" would be on a day-to-day basis compared to "I'm looking for *The
Catcher in the Rye* at my local library and want to know where to find it".
Is finding a book in your local library an appropriate use of Freebase? It's
not much different than asking "I'm looking for car manufacturers in my city
and want to know where to find them".  That seems to be appropriate.

Describing what the library code parts (e.g., 303) refer to and which books
have those code parts is definitely useful, especially if you are conducting
a broad search on a well defined subject. However, the entire key will still
need to be linked in some form to specific books in order to refine the
search (much like a street address) even if the search ends up limiting
books to a particular library. It is unfortunate that a single ontology is
not used for books but that is the rule rather than the exception. I'm of
mind that we should embrace this variation and figure out ways to use it
rather than exclude it.

It seems that the Dewey system is very similar to species concepts. There
are several taxonomic systems, most have similar levels that are defined for
a particular reason (e.g., Kingdom, Phylum, Class,...). Some people think
that the system as written doesn't fit their needs and slightly modify it.
For example, they think there is a reason to differentiate between the hard
cover and soft cover species while another group doesn't. Another group
thinks there is reason to differentiate between the large text and small
text species but doesn't think the cover type is functionally relevant.
Those two groups both add a tenth digit to the code to distinguish between
soft and hard and large and small but neither does both. Over time the
taxonomic system splits and converges in space and time as power shifts
between the lumper and splitter factions. In the end you have two or more
classification systems that are equally valid and equally useful and very
similar... but different.

Freebase could be very useful for not just linking topics but also for
linking the ways they are categorized. As users become more aware of the
various ways that topics are categorized and the reasons behind differences
in systems that define the categories (especially systems that are well used
and well defined) they should be able to develop more and more comprehensive
and mutually exclusive type properties and topic attributes.

My two cents (currently worth 1.981 Canadian cents),
-Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20080318/3bf00b3d/attachment.htm