World of Classification

The ODP is, along with the Library of Congress, Dewey Decimal and in health ICD, shaping how we store knowledge for the future. It would appear to me now that Google has endorsed the category structures (by use)that whomever is the ODP have an awesome responsibility. Is there a forum where the categories are discussed? Is there any thought of getting the ISO or Standards organisations involved to get the ODP Category moved to a more universal platform. I suspect in time it will get there simply by volume of use. This is an area I work within nationally and would be interested to learn more about how the whole shebang is managed.

Category organisation is fluid, given the nature of knowledge and information. Ontology is discussed and modified in a dedicated internal forum for editors. Most of the time it's small issues like "is there an overlap between Science/Home_Sciences/Cheese_Making and Society/Food/Cheese?" but from time to time large categories get reorganised in one big effort. Business was completely reorganised some time ago to eliminate the Business/Industries subcat, so for example Business/Industries/Healthcare became Business/Healthcare. Often cats are added as required, either as an existing category has become too large so is further subcategorised, or as a new topic comes up, e.g. the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

Another thing is that many of the editors over the years have been specialists in the field of information categorization: librarians, archivists and the like. And I think that many if not most of those who get privileges to edit in larger parts of the directory are very interested in the classification as such. We simply like to order things in a sensible way (although some who have seen my home would not believe it )

I am relieved. While I acknowledge the editors rights of inheritence (I suppose it is really only one generation as yet) over the categories and therefore the right to change it over time (as it must change) I am still far from confident that the ODP is building within it transparent and comparable classifications that seek to bind other classifications to it or harmonise with those that exist and are also changing. Librarians are great classifiers and certainly underpaid and under appreciated in my country - Australia.
The International Classification of Disease is in its 10th edition and when one looks at the number of soles who have given substantial parts of their lives to its maintainence and its truely international perspective one wonders if the ODP understands its awsome place in the future of knowledge management and the structure it will need for the next 100 years and more.
I suppose it depends on the intended use of the classification - as an aid for users to search the net or as a classification of the web's content. Two quite different tasks in both size and need for custodianship.
Anyhow just some more ramblings that may stimulate some comment. It is certainly a topic that WHO and similar bodies are going to have to grapple with.

I know that at various times, various parts of the directory have been built on the basis of existing classification structures, but there are probably other people who could elaborate on that statement better than I could.

Here are some links you will find interesting:

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/subcategories.html
http://dmoz.org/regionalguidelines.html
http://dmoz.org/RegionalSubcategories.html

From this you will see that there are strict guidelines about how categories are created, particularly in the Regional branch, to ensure consistency throughout the directory. It tends to be more senior and experienced editors who conduct the majority of new category creation and AFAIK is almost exclusively after discussion and approval of other editors working in the same area.

The actual structure is inherited from the structure adopted by Usenet, although we have adapted it somewhat. The legacy of that is the 'related newsgroups' shown on some categories.

Thats really very valuable information and I am reading it but do you (the collective) have a vision of where you want to be in 50 years? You obviously know where the net is going at least in URI quantum (sky's the limit) but is there an understanding of the potential of the classification as much of the traditionally classified material (health records, books, music, living histories, images, documents) becomes available on the web and thus fair material for the ODP to classify.
I appreciate its origins but when something has almost infinite and possibly malignant growth capacity is it not time to look at its longer term growth and how it will relate to other classification systems. The public in due course is more likely to look to Google and hence the ODP's classification than try to come to grips with the Dewey System or LOC or the subclassifications I refered to in earlier posts.
Maybe this is not a discussion people are interested in here but it would be interesting and undoubtedly is not going to go away.

I suppose as we work on decision support systems that need to find URIs that how that material is categorised becomes critical (maybe even life threatening in relation to medicine and allergies etc.) ODP as a directory is one thing the classification is the real value I suspect in time.

These are some really interesting points. If you have an interest (beyond just talking about this.) You may want to become an editor and participate in the internal discussions on this subject. The whole classification issue is very important to some editors, and they have an ongoing discussion of related issues.

We have an open invitation extended to those who want to participate in building the directory.

Funny you should mention this. Yes, the "meaning of the ODP in 50 years" is an issue that has been raised in our internal forums.

Notice, though, that it's the OD _P_, not the OD. I don't think _anyone_'s planning for us to complete the job, carve it into stone tablets, and deposit it in some mountaintop shrine. It, like the net, is a social construct. And like any other social construct, at some point it will be more interesting to historians than for sociologists -- just like the medieval encyclopedias.

You may be right, but I suspect that the web (and hence directories) will be more than a social construct, in fact quite the reverse and possibly the foundation of a different society more globally interfaced, possibly very divergent maybe even dictatorial as battles rage over truth, evidence and obviously issues of faith, poverty and justice. There will be those with access to value adding knowledge and those believing in web trash. It was interesting at a recent conference that it was noted that the most important advance for humanity to date was the URL (or URI) and all that that implies. I agree with that and therefore methods (be they XML or RDF or Semantic Webs) that allow us to classify what will be on the web will never die as they classify knowledge and excluding another dark age (quite possible) the succesful (in evolutionary terms) classification will live on and evolve (merge, mutate, overtake etc) as will the ICD and I suspect Library of Congress. Of course the next major power once the US goes into decline will get its chance to set the direction - maybe teenager rather than teens or mathematics rather than math or maybe something even more dramatic - speek Chinese anyone. ODP certainly has embraced many languages and I suspect while the current editors may be in stone (or under as Buffy would alude) the ODP will live on in version 100+ or so.

(PS Am trying to be an Editor but having all sorts of technical difficulties see other discussion tree if you are bored!)

Something you said early on intrigued me...

Is there any thought of getting the ISO or Standards organisations involved to get the ODP Category moved to a more universal platform.

Click to expand...

Now I'm just a run of the mill editor, with no particular insight into the inner workings of DMOZ, but why in the world would we ever want to do that?

Why not just turn the directory over to the United Nations?

The ODP directory is a work product that is the result of concensus-building among a fairly large army of volunteers. We have editors who represent every fabric in our global society. We don't always agree upon everything, but we continue to move forward and both grow and improve the directory.

Bringing in an uninvolved third party, like ISO, would be counter to everything that we do, and how we go about doing it.

If some body does not like how we organized the directory, it seems as if they really have three choices:

1. Learn to live with it.
2. Apply to become an editor and work for change from within, but as an individual contributing editor, not as a representative of some organization.
3. Become an ODP customer, take the database and reoganize it until the cows come home, stayng within the terms of our license agreement.

As an interesting aside, our more experienced editors can generally nail down which RDF someone is using (with pretty good accuracy) based on the near constant changes we are making to the directory. If this were a static work, then I could see how someone might want to get a standards body involved, but until then....

[Taking a gold star from the drawer for never once saying "pointed-head academics" or "bumbling bureaucrats" in the above. The restraint shown was simply amazing.]

Interesting topic (to me at least). Some time ago there was a thread about ODP Categories structure URLs stability and Published Subject Indicators (PSI), that may be relevant here. The thread basically says our classification changes continuously, and published with every RDF. So perhaps it may evolves into a completely different beast and still be applicable 50 years in the future?

Did you read the taxonomy newsletter article linked from our Subcategories guidelines written by our Editor in Chief? That summarizes the components of the overall classification taxonomy, Topical-FreeFloating-Regional ...
(1) Topical cats - based on usenet newsgroup classification at top-level.
(2) FreeFloating cats - aka Preferred Terms
(3) Regional cats - only down to country levels generally

The Regional/ branch uses special classification taxonomy, Regional-SubcatTemplate-FreeFloating ...
(1) Regional - geographic locations by continent, country and localities
(2) SubcatTemplate - based on/and similar to Topical subcats
(3) FreeFloating cats - aka Preferred Terms

So far the above "single dimension" ontological framework has sufficed, without going into "multi dimension" ontology such as using "geocoding" instead of Regional.

I understand the public can propose constructive changes to the classification here. Though, in depth discussion of the clasification can only be done with access to the internal forum archives, hence by editors.

Hope that helps, and may you be successful in your editorial application.

Why not just turn the directory over to the United Nations?

Click to expand...

Apart from the current dispute with the UN (or maybe France and Russia more correctly) the WHO (part of the UN) has some pretty heavy experience with classification particularly in health and I suspect some other classifications which are out of my domain. The concepts of the open source access to the directory are both its strength and weakness. Strong in being responsive, current, less influenced by commercial influences, dynamic and extremely CHEAP! The weakness is its dependence on volunteers (still CHEAP), possible control by vested interests (but certainly influenced by a particular type of personality - web surfer, classifier, somewhat obsessive, increasingly protective, conservative in a collectors way) and potential lack of harmony with the way consumers of the web need (or want ) it to develop. It is interesting that the International Classification of Disease is substantially the work of zealots and volunteers. There are some paid people at the top (and some fairly heavy steering but for the most part it is spare time stuff and live off your day job usually in a health environment. I see very little difference between the frank and meaningful discussions the ODP has on at least its public sites and those within the ICD/WHO community.

It is interesting that the International Classification of Disease is substantially the work of zealots and volunteers.

Click to expand...

What you describe sounds very much like what we do on a broader, less intensive scale. I don't think it would be effective to try to have any standards organization tackle the ontology of the entire directory, but I do believe that groups can focus on special topics and really come up with consistent and thorough classification schemes. We do this internally whenever we have enough people with expert knowledge of a topic. If we find an authoritative external source of classification we tend to use those, possibly with modification to fit other needs. In areas where we don't have expertise or a good reference, we cobble together something that works to classify what we have.

I don't think it would be effective to try to step back and create an entire classification system for an entire directory at one shot. By the time it was worked out, it would likely be obsolete. However, members of standards groups are welcome to join ODP and share their expertise - this is the intention behind the volunteer driven system.

In other words, think of ODP as a standards group, one which needs experts in every little nook and cranny.

By the time it was worked out, it would likely be obsolete.

Click to expand...

Certainly the ODP has produced a working directory structure ( and it really does work) which for any classification is a great step, particularly for something so dynamic as the web. In fact it is really a miracle of volunteering when you think about it. Humans love to classify. Apart from Bower Birds I think we are probably the only species that does.
I don't think a web classification if it works will ever be obsolete as it classifies knowledge. Sure some parts will have less content (say vinyl records or typewriters) but they will still be valid for history etc. I mean (with respect) that if there was a World Trade Centre architecture site it would always be valid as would Bob Hope, John Lennon, the abacus. Once classified it will live forever if correctly archived and managed.
My major problems are probably with TOP based on the early usenet categories and I have some problem with the US centric nature of some areas which aren't regional. I acknowledge the origins and the debt we owe the US for the web and everything associated but getting the TOP levels right now will guarantee the ODP for ever I suspect. I can live with TOP as it stands but it could be better (not that I would want to start that debate here with my level of ignorance - I would be flamed to death. )

Anyhow I am learning a lot about the Editors from this discussion and I think the knowledge of the world is in pretty good hands. Beats a couple of stone tablets!

The US-centric nature of some parts of the ODP is much less now than it was, say, 3 years ago. It's a growing and evolving thing.

My major problems are probably with TOP based on the early usenet categories

Click to expand...

I'm sure many editors have similar feelings. However, once you get further down in the directory where the categories are more specific, things make more sense and it doesn't matter so much which top level branch it's under. The nice thing about @links, is that categories that could reside in multiple places, do.

Agree the cross links are valuable, though in themselves they will introduce a steadily increasing complexity for mapping and management into your classification. I really do think at some time TOP has to be done over but I am just a voice in the wilderness looking in on this vast and complex cohabitation of editorial activity. The ODP (and a number of other classification bodies) remind me of the inertia of armies that Tolstoy talks about in War and Peace. Once you get enough mass moving even the generals can't stop them. (Don't stand in front.) Even when you can see you are going in the wrong direction like the Titanic its impossible to turn in a hurry, (and if your big enough and comfortable enough in the collective you usually can't see the point of change anyway till--->:explosive.

I'm slightly familiar with parts of the LOC cataloging system. Its concept of relationships between categories is almost identical to the ODP's -- they have subcats, parent cats, and related cats; a cat can have multiple parents, and a book can fit into multiple unrelated cat. Its structure is very different; at the highest levels most of the boundaries are essentially arbitrary. (Why is Russia in Europe, Pakistan in the Middle East, and India in Asia, for instance? What's the real boundary between Sports, Games, and Recreation? What day did Beethoven stop writing "Classical" music and start writing "Romantic"? What's the relationship between the Humanities and the Sciences, or between Science and Philosophy, or Philosophy and Religion? Between web designers and web developers?)

We tend not to worry too much about such things. If necessary, we can just use "virtual subcategories" (@links) and "related categories" to keep people from going astray by making the "other" (but not "wrong") choice when surfing down from the main categories. We use LOTS of @links, but (IMO) not nearly enough -- yet.

I have enjoyed this thread. I have now been successful in becoming an editor in Health/Medicine/Informatics/Academic so I'll be busy for a while however I am starting to see just how complex your classification task is. Talk about herding cats. You need to be a particular kind of person to have a great idea about how to classify and then watch the other tigers or editors descend and attack with logic, experience and I suspect just a little dash of pride in what they have established before. Hey sounds like fun!

See ya all inside!