Joho the Blog
|
|
|
January 12, 2007
Kevin Gamble asks a really interesting question: Can anyone come up with an example of a taxonomy that has scaled sufficiently to keep up with the insane in-rush of information we now take for granted? [Tags: kevin_gamble taxonomy everything_is_miscellaneous folksonomy ] Posted
by D. Weinberger at January 12, 2007 11:30 AM
|
Comments
Hi I normally don't post into blogs like this but I need help with Taxonomy. I am a recruiter who has a nice job for someone in taxonomy. They would need to be able to develop the taxonomy and implement it across a large corporation that currently has nothing in place. If any one can point me in direction as to where I could find such a person I would be very grateful. Thanks for your help
Greg
Posted by: greg mclean | January 12, 2007 11:42 AM
David,
What if the internet is a 'Scalefree netwrork' ?
as many phisics are now saying.
I tend to consider context as king in the net.
if you didn t already, you may be interested in this kind of papers
http://polymer.bu.edu/~hes/networks/mbsa02.pdf
Posted by: Gianluca Baccanico | January 12, 2007 11:49 AM
The Wikipedia category system, for one, or DMOZ as another example. Do they count?
denny
Posted by: Denny Vrandecic | January 12, 2007 01:58 PM
That's way too vague a question. But, I think it's fair to say (and even a truism) that free tagging keyword systems scale in ways that controlled vocabularies can't.
Wikipedia and DMOZ are interesting examples if you imagine that there are a mob of taxonomies on the web that start with, say Wikipedia, and then follow every link from there and continue through the taxonomies of every site linked. For example, one could say that this hierarchy is part of such a taxonomy:
Wikipedia / Categories / 1950 Births / David Weinberger / Evident Home / JOHO the Blog / Newsletter / August 21, 2006 issue / One Web Day [etc]
You might say the web is made up of taxonomies with user selected boundaries (the user selects the root, then the user has some control over what she chooses to see as braches and what as leaves ;-)
Posted by: Jay Fienberg | January 12, 2007 03:29 PM
Denny, I don't think Wikipedia or DMOZ count as examples because their entries are only in the low millions, considerably smaller than, say, the Library of Congress. By scaling, I think Kevin means into Web proportions, i.e., low hundreds of billions.
Also, Wikipedia's category system is, arguably closer to being a tagging system, not a top-down taxonomy.
Posted by: David Weinberger | January 12, 2007 04:50 PM
This comment is for Greg McLean, the recruiter. You might want to post the position on TaxoCOP, a Yahoo Taxonomy Community of Pratice.
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TaxoCoP/
Posted by: Maria | January 13, 2007 02:10 PM
This comment is for Greg McLean, the recruiter. You might want to post the position on TaxoCOP, a Yahoo Taxonomy Community of Practice.
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TaxoCoP/
Posted by: Maria | January 13, 2007 02:11 PM
Thank you for elevating my question to some level of visibility David!
As an FYI I have not received a single reply pointing me to a taxonomic approach to this issue. I don't think one exists given our current technological constraints.
Posted by: Kevin | January 14, 2007 10:46 AM
There are plenty of species still being discovered, & I haven't heard many stories of biologists throwing up their hands in despair.
But the way the question's posed only really allows for one answer. Can taxonomies scale? Sure they can. Can taxonomies deal with a freakin content tsunami and the insane inrush of everything? Er, OK, I guess not.
Posted by: Phil | January 15, 2007 04:44 AM
Sorry, the insane in-rush of information.
Posted by: Phil | January 15, 2007 04:51 AM
I am getting involved in blogs for the first time and it appears to be a great way to get the word out on positions, especially in well networked industries like recruiting. Currently, we are looking to fill a number of regional recruiting positions, located in almost every location of the country. These positions
offer a solid salary, bonus, equity, and company car. In addition, relocation would be provided, so if there was ever a time you wanted to look at another
part of the country, now would be the time. The regional recruiters would be responsible for recruiting field based management positions including regional
H.R. directors, market H.R. managers, Store managers, co-managers, assistant managers, etc. These recruiters would not be responsible for the hourly recruiting
but would provide training an guidance to other H.R. staff members on how to recruit and regain hourly talent. This is an exciting opportunity for talented,
driven, and experienced recruiters. The position will require up to 70% travel in your assigned region. As we have a number of positions to fill, please
forward on to your recruiting partners as well. Relocation is provided. A list of locations is provided below. Please submit all resumes and or questions
to
ryan.loken@wal-mart.com
I look forward to working with you soon.
Baltimore, MD
Trenton, NJ
Albany, NY.
Charlotte, NC
Memphis, TN
Miami, FL
Pensacola, FL
Jackson, MS
Lansing, MI
Allentown, PA
Nevada Anywhere
Washington Anywhere
Missouri Anywhere
Chicago, IL
California Anywhere
Sugar Land, TX
Denver, CO
San Antonio, TX
Bloomington, MN
Arizona Anywhere
Posted by: Ryan Loken | March 3, 2007 04:59 PM
iFup1c Hello people, your site is best!
http://news.eusme.info/sitemap.xml ">.
http://news.eusme.info/map1.html ">.
Posted by: foxtrot | August 21, 2007 11:45 PM