Jacques et al,
Infinite division? No. I have a bit of an understanding of that exercise
that Terry talked about, and it seems to me to be more of a "data mining"
effort, in that the labels that others use in their work were the ones
collected to form those lists. If there are many divisions, they were
already there and not the invention of any other person. It's more akin to
the taxonomy of organisms than it is an ontology that is the brainchild of
a single researcher or a small group.
Why would such a taxonomy be useful? For all the reasons any taxonomy may
be useful. My personal favorite is in seeking the similar by categorizing
the different. If each of the many bits were described in some one, it
should (might?) be easier to see what's common to clades of them. This can
help build community as well as establish bodies of knowledge.
Don't you think?
/fas
On 15 June 2012 11:04, Jacques Giard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From my perspective, it appears that we could easily lose the goal of
> designing if we allow ourselves to be distracted by the many ways that
> design can be sub-divided. Returning to our Balinese craftsman, isn't one
> goal of designing to do things as well as possible? If so, then I do not
> see how dividing design into an infinite number of bits helps.
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|