82,459
edits
Metadata taxonomy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|design|}}Eager reg tech providers may try to sell you some kind of artificially intelligent automated taxonomy application that will ca...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This is rather like a central bureaucracy forecasting the population’s forthcoming need for spoons, rather than letting a competitive market sort this out by itself. | This is rather like a central bureaucracy forecasting the population’s forthcoming need for spoons, rather than letting a competitive market sort this out by itself. | ||
For no [[chatbot]], no [[neural network]], however [[artificially intelligent]], can apprehend the particular use a [[user]] may have for categorising data. That is not how they work. | |||
We inhabit a dynamic, shape-shifting world. The “market” is a sprawling, inchoate patchwork of sprawling, inchoate, patchwork systems. What counts as a canonical category here is no use as a category there — even inside the same firms <ref>The best example is the “client”. A [[sales]] desk might categorise a client by its sector; the credit department by its market capitalisation; the legal department by its corporate form, [[compliance]] by its sophistication; [[Tax attorney|tax]] by its domicile. These categorisations are [[incommensurable]] — but need not ''be'' commensurated: all are relevant, and none has intellectual priority over the others. Building a system to manage these clients requires design choices.</ref> | We inhabit a dynamic, shape-shifting world. The “market” is a sprawling, inchoate patchwork of sprawling, inchoate, patchwork systems. What counts as a canonical category here is no use as a category there — even inside the same firms <ref>The best example is the “client”. A [[sales]] desk might categorise a client by its sector; the credit department by its market capitalisation; the legal department by its corporate form, [[compliance]] by its sophistication; [[Tax attorney|tax]] by its domicile. These categorisations are [[incommensurable]] — but need not ''be'' commensurated: all are relevant, and none has intellectual priority over the others. Building a system to manage these clients requires design choices.</ref> | ||