thingamy

Comte de Buffon was right, perhaps

Big thanks to David Weinberger and his post "Linnaeus and Buffon - Tales of Classification Superheroes".

Thus he kindly made me aware that what we're discussing today is like... ehh... 250 year old stuff.

Well, better being late than never I say.

If only Buffon had the current technology available back then... cannot but think that the hierarchical system won over the multiple purpose and multiple criteria method due to technical constraints:

Not easy to use hyperlinks and multiple tags in bound tomes of paper...

But today it is, let's pick up where the good Comte de Buffon left us and show the fans of Carl von Linnae what a perfectly good (?) alternative could have been. :)

[NOTE: New version of test (pls use Firefox/Safari) for Buffon-friendly iffy-tag-interception method coming in a few days.]

ataxonomy (even more on tags)

Pretending to be Greek in a late afternoon...

Taxonomy
from Greek - "arrangement method/distribution"

• Arrangement at source (fixing position for object)
• Using tree-structures
• Two dimensional relationships between objects
• Like links, changes at source breaks the system
• Precise and sequential - any fault breaks the system
• Precise and sequential - target must know the semantics, the standards
• Understanding based on knowledge of standards and topic-semantics
• Value and knowledge delivered by ID limited and set at source (first name, family name etc.)

Ataxonomy (originally Anataxonomy, see note below)
freely gleaned from Greek - "without-arrangement method" (how's that for passing as ancient Greek?)

• No arrangement at source (no fixed position for object)
• No tree-structure, no structure at source
• No limits to dimensions for relationships for objects
• Changes at source have no effect at target (object tags follows object changes)
• Non-sequential and imprecise, error friendly
• Non-sequential and open, target does not need to know semantics or standards
• Understanding independent on standards and topic-semantics
• Value and knowledge delivered by ID (tags cloud) unlimited and increasing by use

Ataxonomy in practice:

"Free-tagging and iffy-tags-interception" as in this test or this tags-only-Thingamy-official-site (pls use Firefox/Safari, anything but MS IE in fact).
Bit more about the methodology below - here, here and here.

Any ancient-Greek linguists out there? Could need some help... :)

[Linguistic update: Dimitris points to "ana" mapping to "re" in English as does Elias in a comment on the Thingamy site-by-tags-only: "As a native greek speaker I have to comment on "anataxonomy". The greek prefix "ana" is usually the equivalent of the english "re". For example the word "genisi" means birth and "anagenisi" means rebirth. So that makes "anataxonomy" means something like re- arrangement method. The "a" prefix is the one that implies "without". Therefore I suggest renaming it to "ataxonomy"."
Suspect "Ataxonomy" it should be then!]

imprecision it is (tags continued)

Excellent, fun, make-me-smile discussion going on here!

Foot-in-the-mouthishly I suggested that voluminous and imprecise tagging would do the trick for any kind of object or issue, leaving precision to a delivery method of iffy-tags-interception.

That is met with strong arguments for "precision" at the creation side - "must have precise definitions of the tags, must have standards, must have master lists..."

Analytical, linear, logical, structured - that's the thing. Us analytical chaps being serious and such.

I'd like to give the opposite another go:

Why do debaters scream at each other? Different takes on terms and concepts and issues, different understanding of what was said.

Why do lawyers exist? To sort out the mess.

That's when we fall back to the standard solution: Focus on precision. We urge the parties to agree to common standards, we urge them to add more detailed paragraphs to the contracts.

This is what we (really) should be doing:

Accept imprecision as a given fact of life, focus on how to make the imprecision useful.

Go iffy and voluminous on the "creation" side, let iffy-tags-interception deliver the precise results and full knowledge on the "seeker" side. Avoid costly training. Avoid misspent time on standards discussions. Let understanding be an easier task.

Let free-tagging plus iffy-tags-interception free creativity, right brains and spontaneity.

Auto parts, ideas, posts, insects, articles, cranksets, people... same thing, conceptually and technically.

prime tags or iffy overlapping tags

Now we're talking - Hugh coined "Prime tags" (love that one) as the common denominator when Toby asked for a "master list" to be used when describing anything with fewest possible tags.

And Jon joined in with a definition of "Prime tags" being "tags that have more than less commonly shared meaning".

Are we not a bit stuck in the "bottom-up" thinking pattern here? A bit stuck in "tree structures" going out from a trunk? Precision is all etc.

Here we need to be precise, stumble once and everything is messed up.

The "experiment" suggested using multiple tags when choosing, then even iffy keywords (tags) will be able to deliver precise results.

"Top-down" thinking as it were.

Note that "salad" and "diuretic" alone could do the trick (what would I know with my limited botanic knowledge :). And there could be other and different tags that could cover the Dandelion with precision.

Maybe we have to do with more than 33 tags to cover the whole earth population or all the books ever written. I think we can live with a few more.

Example:

• Tag an object with "pattern".
• Some will think "music", some "maths" and your grandmother may think "knitting".
• Add "cloth" and it narrows down.
• Add "tartan" and at least I see some Scottish patterns in my mind.
• Still not precise? Add "Macleod".
• Or instead of "Macleod" you add "The Highlanders" and "Main character". Both of these highly different tags could lead to the same - but none of them alone would lead to anything specific.
• It's the combination that makes the difference.

Classic 'knowledge building' is based on common denominators, building blocks - or tree structures! Precise stuff required, sequence allimportant.

Multiple tags is the opposite, building knowledge from diffuse and imprecise tags/keywords using the intersection actively. Sequence does not even matter.
The more precise tags the better of course, but as these things goes one or two or three more tags makes even very iffy tags useful.
And going from 12 to 14 tags makes no big difference in practice.

Now you would know what that plant could be used for as well! That's "knowledge". Delivered by tags defining it.

For the user facing "mac", "macintosh" and "apple" knowing that all could mean the same could avoid these at first, then try one at a time at the end if required. (That's why we did the 'experiment' - trying to find a simple interface that would be easy to use.)

Important:

The author, the one adding tags, should be generous in sprinkling tags - it does not matter. In fact the more the better.

It is the user, the one who seeks the object that will choose how many tags he needs to make a precise choice, a precise intersection. In above example, using only "The Highlander" and "Pattern" he may find out what Hugh should wear at weddings!

tree structures should be chopped down (continued)

Mentioned an experiment the other day.

Now we have it - in a very simple form. Here. No manual, no hints, not much to look at, confusing, takes awhile to get head around, etc., use your imagination :)

What you'll find there is a CMS (Content Management System, management part hidden), like a blog, or a web site, a personnel overview, or - if you stretch your imagination - a data repository.

All of the above have articles, posts, comments, data, persons - as objects. Deposited in a database.

Now, where/how to find such objects?

Standard is of course tree-structures (two dimensional). Add some cross-tagging like 'categories' or 'archives-per-dates' (three dimensional), sometimes made more useful with search.

Enter tags.

Now, that we know from say Technorati. Quite the same as categories within most blogging systems.

So far so good. But not good enough.

Even with tags we easily become overwhelmed and would require some data-structure to find our way. Technorati follows 1.3 million tags now!
Every person on this planet has a tag; name or social security number etc. 6.45 billion of them.

This experiment:

Uses multiple tag choices to choose and find.

And so what?

Using multiple tags, about 20 tags would cover the 1.3 million single-use tags at Technorati.

Using multiple tags, about 33 tags could give a unique identity to every person in the whole world.

(Quite a few years since I studied statistics, believe I'm in the ballpark, but anybody out there who could corroborate?)

And 20-30 tags are less cumbersome to navigate than 1.3 million, or 6 billion!

Multiple tags can replace any single tag, however unique that is.

You're tagged with your name. That does not say much, does it? Unless I know you of course.

Now try multiple tags. Add 10 tags, red hair, tall, birthplace etc. and you may be one of 153,000 with exact same tag set. Add yet another one that says more about you, say 'Italian speaking' - voila, you got only 9,675 individuals with the same tags. Add one more, now 634 identicals. Add two more and 'highlighting' exactly those 14 tags gives one return; you.

Ditto for plants, ditto for file structure on your computer, goodbye folders and search. Etc.

Add that a set of tags gives immediate (and complete!) information about the object. Far beyond what a two dimensional system may give (First and middle name, family name, does not give much information that).

And that is what knowledge is all about. Expand on that.

Time for a remake of Carl von Linné's work?

BTW, search is fine but not the same. Write a document, search by keywords and you'll get lots of irrelevant documents up on the screen. Or you may never mention the relevant word even if the whole oeuvre is about that theme, thus a search would be moot.

So go over here and have a look, try etc. But keep in mind it's just for the fun of it!

[NOTE: The content in the "experiment" has been lifted from thingamy.com just to fill it up with something... ]

tree structures should be chopped down

David Weinberger wrote an article here titled "Taxonomies to Tags: From Trees to Piles of Leaves", I love the title!

Let me respectfully add:

Tree structures are useful but bad. Chop them down and burn them in the nearest fireplace.

Do the test:

1. Write a letter, using a word processor, to a friend about some tax issues, some personal stuff and a great new joke you just heard.
2. Save the file to a folder. Choose the folder according to either recipient, theme or whatever you normally choose. Your choice.
3. Wait two months.
4. Find it.

Did you find it immediately? Or did you have to think hard, trying to put yourself into your own mind two months ago - was it in a folder named 'Friends', 'Letters', 'Jokes' or in a folder somewhere named 'Tax issues'?

Next test. Go to any big corporate web site and find out more about the head of marketing.

Did you choose the "About" tab, then looking for annual reports? Or "Corporate" and with luck a tab named "Organisation"? Or did you use the search engine, then scrolling though lots of unrelated articles and documents?

[NOTE: Search is a fix, but as it uses the precise words therein it hardly reflects what the author 'really meant'. Not to mention all the fluff you get from totally unrelated articles/documents.]

The sticky point about two dimensional tree-structures is that you have to assimilate the logic of somebody else. Or yourself two months ago.

Maria Montessori was onto something when she decided that children should learn to write before reading - easier to express yourself than assimilating somebody's thoughts and concepts.

Third test: Say you're working in a large corporation and need specific help.

Did the organisational chart help you? Do titles (= positions) like "Senior fellow of research and development and technical support, low density polyethylene" help you? Would that be the man?

You'd have to rely on some checking around until you found somebody who know of somebody who actually has the knowledge transcending the fine titles. (Manual search that is.)

You have many talents and much knowledge, then you're hired for a specific tree-structure-slot (= position) with a fancy indecipherable title as it happens in any hierarchy. Would that be conductive to your many talents? Would the company you're working for in fact be able to make use of your (now partly hidden) talents and knowledge?

As I said. Chop'em down and make a nice bonfire for midsummer's eve.

Alternative? Perhaps, perhaps, tags. Tags are linked the "right" way, from the source and from the author, not the other way like links.

But they're not very useful the way they're used today - one at a time. Multiple tag selection should do the trick. From two-dimensional data structures to no-dimensional-limited knowledge.

Hang on a few weeks, we're tinkering with a slightly wacky CMS for the heck of it (and to test these ideas in practice) to produce navigation-bar-less-no-trees-in-sight websites/knowledge repositories, should be fun. Watch this space.