[Data-modeling] Library of Congress and Dewey Classifications

[Benjamin Good]

I wonder if it would be appropriate to expand this discussion to  
consider the generic problem of how to treat external controlled  
vocabularies in the context of freebase or if you think the DDC and  
LLC classifications are unique and in need of separate consideration?

My personal interests here are:
1) utilizing the freebase platform to interface with large, extant  
biomedical terminologies and ontologies (e.g. mesh http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/)
2) producing a generic semantic tagging system (think del.icio.us++)  
that helps users tag things with topics extracted from freebase.
(See "an exercise for the reader" from Will Moffet's post about how to  
use the freebase type-ahead for tagging) http://blog.hamstersoup.com/2007/11/08/tagging-demo-with-freebase-suggest/ 
  )
3) putting 1 and 2 together

Regarding the discussion so far, creating topics for each of the  
classifications makes sense to me as it makes it possible to start  
linking the concepts represented by the terms and the codes together  
in meaningful ways.  I think I don't really understand the alternative  
very well, or why it would be unfeasible to enter every DD  
classification as a unique topic in freebase.  Could you elaborate a  
bit ?

best regards
-Ben


On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Jeff Prucher wrote:

> Here are my current thinking on these classifications right now:
>
> 1) DDC and LCC properties should be non-unique, and should stay on  
> "book
> edition". (Even though Dewey doesn't uniquely map to editions,  
> keeping at
> the book edition level makes it easier to import data from MARC and
> MARC-like sources, which don't collapse editions into individual  
> books.)
>
> 2) There is some interest in having at least the high-level codes as  
> topics,
> rather than strings, but we haven't come to any agreement about how  
> this
> might work. It seems that making EVERY possible Dewey or LoC  
> classification
> into a topic is not practical, and may get into copyright issues  
> anyway. But
> only making the 1000 three digit Dewey #s or however-many two-letter  
> LoC
> numbers doesn't really help Tim K. with his discovery of books on  
> similar
> topics. However, it could be used for Ed's proposed cross-mapping of
> subjects, if such a thing turns out to be feasible.
>
> Further thoughts?
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Ed Laurent
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:22 AM
>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Library of Congress and Dewey
>> Classifications
>>
>> Understood. Maybe I was getting a little carried away.
>> However, querying a library for a particular book could
>> require knowledge of it's complete Dewey code and version
>> depending on how it is referenced by the library.
>>
>> I guess my potentially useful point was that anyone's concept
>> of <subject topic> may differ from someone else's. Defining
>> and cross referencing similar subject ontologies (e.g., Dewey
>> versions, land cover classification systems, species
>> concepts) is therefore very important so that people can find
>> <other books on subject> even if the book topics are linked
>> to a subject only through a similar but different ontology.
>> This will likely require that categories or subject topics
>> (e.g., topics of "Book subject" type) are listed as topics of
>> a defined ontology type (see topics listed in Classification
>> system
>> <http://www.freebase.com/view/user/spatialed/default_domain/cl
>> assification_system> ) and that the subject topics are cross
>> referenced to similar subject topics of different ontologies
>> (see Equals, Overlaps, Contains, and Contained by properties
>> of Classification code
>> <http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_do
>> main/classification_code> ). This is one way that
>> "higher-order semantics" that Robert referred to in the
>> Events thread can be defined.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Prucher
>> <jeff at metaweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 	> -----Original Message-----
>> 	> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>> 	
>> 	> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf
>> Of Ed Laurent
>> 	
>> 	> 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.
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	I'd say that "I'm looking for library branches in my
>> city" is more analogous
>> 	to "I'm looking for car manufacturers in my city".
>> Finding a book in your
>> 	local library is more akin to querying the current
>> stock of an auto-parts
>> 	store. Since Freebase can never hope to be as good as
>> your local library's
>> 	actual website in terms of being able to find out what
>> books they have, I
>> 	don't think it's an appropriate use. What would be
>> appropriate, though, is
>> 	to have a way either to query which libraries have a
>> particular item, or to
>> 	query a specific library for an item. We don't
>> currently have this
>> 	capability, but it would be very, very cool.
>> 	
>>
>>
>> 	> 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.
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	This is a very good point, and well worth keeping in
>> mind as we deal not
>> 	only with book data, but many other types of data as well.
>> 	
>> 	Jeff
>> 	
>>
>> 	_______________________________________________
>> 	Data-modeling mailing list
>> 	Data-modeling at freebase.com
>> 	http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>> 	
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling