 |
 |
Dear All, The point about vocabularies is that they can be both expansive or limiting. Even though the formalised, controlled vocabularies in SMRs has enabled people to identify and locate things more easily, these vcabularies do not and cannot express all the subtle meanings of a rich and diverse 'local' or idiosyncratic vocabulary. That's why we have synonyms in our language so we can express different understandings. Newspeak was about limiting whole realms of understanding or thinking to fewer and fewer words. It's a bit like people saying "ya know what I mean?". However, I suspect the Government has a two pronged approach. Unless you know the precise word or address to look for on Government web sites, you can get thousands of possible entries without finding what you want. A great way to hide information. On the other hand, one needs to think around the "controlled" word always giving a positive spin to information even if its bad: so to make a complaint, or find info about depleted uranium, you've got to look up "customer services" ! This latter actually defeats the purpose of controlled vocabularies, because one has to think up in one's mind what other words might find what you want ! There's no doubt that words control the way we view the world. Controlled vocabularies may be useful, but we should have a healthy respect for them. Cheers, Neil >>> [log in to unmask] 12/01/2001 13:06:35 >>> Hmm - interesting point, Neil. I guess it all depends on who is responsible for approving / rejecting candidate terms and the structuring of the relationships! An Office of Fair Indexing perhaps? Ed -----Original Message----- From: Neil Campling [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 12 January 2001 12:47 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: FW: UK Government Metadata Framework released for comment Dear Ed, Smacks of Orwellian 'Newspeak' to me: controlling vocabularies to limit the way people enquire and think about things. Doubleplusungood ! Cheers, Neil