On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:56 AM, Magnus Manske wrote:
So, do we need another kind of *indexing*, or just a new way of cross-reading existing categories? Magnus Kardos András schrieb:
Yes, a *primitive* form of an index. Alfio Puglisi <puglisi@...> writes:
Aren't categories a primitive form of index? Alfio
I think I understand some of the original intent behind this idea, so let me expand upon what I thought the idea was.
Let's take an existing article, which already has some categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
It has a fairly small set of current indexed categories: Categories: 1929 births | 1945 deaths | Diarists | Dutch writers | Murdered writers | Holocaust | Dutch World War II people | People with asteroids named after them
It does *not* have the following possibly relevant, hypothetical(?), categories attached: People born on June 12 | Famous Jewish People | Famous Young Authors | People who hid during the holocaust | Authors whose work has been disputed | Authors whose work was redacted by their family | People who died in Bergen-Belsen | Authors whose work had been converted to theater | Authors whose work became opera | Authors who were born in Frankfurt am Main | Authors born in Germany | Famous Reform Jews | Famous Montessori Students | Famous Aachen residents | Events of July 8th | Events of October 28th | Authors who told biographical account using pseudonyms | People published in Het Parool | Plays by Goodrich and Hackett | Pulitzer Prize winning Dramas | .... (the list goes on and on)
As you see, the currently existing categories can scratch the surface, but can also miss many connections (as currently implemented).
As I understand the idea, it is about either: a) Much more human indexing categories being applied b) Automated systems so that the "what links here" kinds of information are added in some way to existing indexes, or categories, or utilized in an obvious way to display existing connections....
-Bop