Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:27 pm UTC

There's a big clue is in the title; however a little explanation is necessary, perhaps.

So, as explained to me by a wild eyed man with a tie-dye tie on the DLR "Intelligent information is information which is structured, designed or embedded as to make it easy to collect, compare, analyse or process. If you're familiar with the argument for information 'wanting' to be valuable, then intelligent information could be considered value-added."

He went on to moan about web 2.0; saying that user generated tagging and the related folksonomy had given a false impression of progress to those not intimately involved with searching information. He espoused the view that categorisation is far superior to tagging, and that a semi-controlled vocabulary approach (AKA moderation of user generated content) was superior to full control (in which case one finds objects for which categories have not been considered by the central authority) or no control (in which case users create their own interpretations, meaning that a search needs to include many synonyms and related concepts to pull in all relevant information). In this respect I'd broadly agree with him...

Of course that disregards the difficulty of needing a trained moderator to check the catorgorisation, which is practical for say Reuters or Alamy who make profit from providing information relevant to specific interests. But not in more general cases.

So, opinions and thoughts please... (especially if anyone can think of a practical way to create a wiki-media style system of voluntary members of the public moderating an information categorization tool somewhere, or a similar project to create a tag search enrichment system along the lines of first using Google sets, then Googling the result, then slowly narrowing the items in the search until you eliminate unwanted information.)
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26428
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:29 pm UTC

I'm not sure I understand the difference between Tagging and Categorization, other than one having a "hip" and "with it" name. I mean, if the available tags suck, then it's not going to work right... but it wouldn't work right if the available categories sucked too. Is it the notion of being cross-categorized that has the speaker all annoyed?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:44 pm UTC

Catagorisation: you can have
Category: Fruits| Subcategory: Orange| objects: clementine, tangarine, etc.

or

Category: Orange| Subcategory: Fruits| Objects: (cat)Fruit(subcat)Orange, apricot, peach, mango etc...

whereas tags would have have

Tags: Orange, Fruit| objects: clementine, tangarine, apricot, peach, mango etc... [plus some things that are either orange and have vague relation to fruit, or fruity and have a vague relation to orange.]
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26428
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:51 pm UTC

As I said, shitty tags are just as bad as shitty categories. [Orange_(Fruit)] not being a tag is the fault of the tag implementer, not the tagging system as a whole.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Lord Aurora
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:14 am UTC

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby Lord Aurora » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:57 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:(cat)Fruit
Here's your problem.

Cats aren't fruit.
Decker wrote:Children! Children! There's no need to fight. You're ALL stupid.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:55 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:As I said, shitty tags are just as bad as shitty categories. [Orange_(Fruit)] not being a tag is the fault of the tag implementer, not the tagging system as a whole.


That was a poor example perhaps, a IRL good example of the advantages of a strictly hierarchically system of labeling information might get a bit dull.

However, that is only one part of the issue, because as you say a hierachy of garbage is still useless. The bigger issue is that tagging has generally been implemented with no set vocabulary, and no rule on how to expand said vocabulary when it is found wanting... Categorisation implementations are generally employing a centrally controlled vocabulary, and if there is a need for expansion (either from user request or noticeable failure) the authority in control updates it.

So really the issue is that the current implementation of tagging is more likely to give erroneous results (be they negative or positive).

Importantly; how can a controlled (but evolving) vocabulary labeling system be community authored and brought to implementation? Whether you prefer to have a set hierarchy or to give all labels equal merit is less important than having quality of labeling and its relevance to content standardised and controlled.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26428
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:20 pm UTC

Eh, that's mostly nitpicking a side tangent anyway.

I'd say that ideally, your category/tagging/whatever system of organization is centrally controlled {as in, people can't just type what the fuck ever into the organization field} but at the same time a community effort can modify the central database.

Though I'm still not sure what the best end-result would be. You wouldn't want to limit categorization at the item's creation as, if the creator is an idiot and assigns it the wrong organization, you'll have Oranges stuck in the Vegetable section until it's deleted and recreated or whatever - so.. yes, you would want it to be adjustable post-creation. But a tag-voting system like in Little Big Planet would get unwieldy even if you only limited it to tags people had suggested. A category system would likely become so specialized as to basically have the music genre problem ("This is Funeral Doom Speed Thrash, not Doom Power Speed Funeral, you fucking moron!") where the categories become essentially meaningless and useless.

So.. I don't know. Wikiorganization? Orwellian Tags?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:58 pm UTC

Wikiorganization?


This!

Ta for that, now does anyone who's not me or sexytalon want to suggest anything more specific?
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

Ubik
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

Re: Let's all talk about intelligent information!

Postby Ubik » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:02 pm UTC

I have an idea, although it does not really feel all that original. It is mostly related to text-based wikis, but might be applicable to other kinds of content too:

The basic idea is that the tags/categories would be required to be existing pages themselves. If you want to categorize/tag a page about apples as food-related, there would have to be an existing page with "Food" as it's title. It would be more like marking up relations between things than putting them in categories or maintaining a tag list. In a way the categories/tags would also get meaning to themselves this way, instead of being only a short piece of text attached to the page.

That in itself is nothing special, linking pages to each other is a basic thing in wikis, but the relation-marking part is mostly done in a sort of implicit way, so that the human reader needs to read from the text how things are related to each other. The relations could be more meaningful if they had a type, so that pages about apples and oranges would both be marked as child pages of food page. Regular relation between pages would be a simple this-relates-to-that kind of thing that does not imply a child-parent relation between the pages. There might also be more relation types, for example x-is-an-y and x-has-an-y.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests