What’s funny is I’ve researched this before – many times. I thought I had to go both broad and depth simultaneously, or rather – if you turn a broad sideways, it just becomes depth, right? And that’s true. But — once you decide upon an ontology, it’ll have a form of hierarchy and that’s where your categories make up the broad and the members of categories the depths. You can still rotate them around — but if you have a ontology that works for you, it’s ok to stick with it too. And maybe that was the ‘thing’ for me. I’d always liked Dewey Decimal and already used it for a number of similar brain-projects over the past 7 years since starting this. I had my ontology that I liked already. Imperfect but room enough for anything so it’ll do for now. The traversals / cross edges are Wikipedia subjects mostly for now but it’s also been author name or other things — whatever connects the depths to new broads.

What’s funny is I’ve researched this before – many times. I thought I had to go both broad and depth simultaneously, or rather – if you turn a broad sideways, it just becomes depth, right?

And that’s true.

But — once you decide upon an ontology, it’ll have a form of hierarchy and that’s where your categories make up the broad and the members of categories the depths.

You can still rotate them around — but if you have a ontology that works for you, it’s ok to stick with it too.

And maybe that was the ‘thing’ for me. I’d always liked Dewey Decimal and already used it for a number of similar brain-projects over the past 7 years since starting this.

I had my ontology that I liked already. Imperfect but room enough for anything so it’ll do for now. The traversals / cross edges are Wikipedia subjects mostly for now but it’s also been author name or other things — whatever connects the depths to new broads.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four × = 4

Leave a Reply