Fil,
I concur with both the principle of taxonomy and your rationale for it. It
makes sense that we understand what the design community is doing as
large and as diverse as it is. As humans we are, after all, all designers.
That said, it is indeed unfortunate that this same search for
understanding leads part of the community to react with a sense of
territorial imperative. The reflection that I offered, from the Balinese
artisan, was my way of saying that any action needs to be undertaken with
an overall perspective in mind. In this case, the search for exactitude in
nomenclature must occur within the broader context of the consequences of
design itself. Its the old forest-and-the-trees phenomenon. This is what I
fear could get lost as we dig deeper.
By the way, I was using the word infinite in a figurative way. But then
again, I am certain that you understood as much.
Have a nice summer.
Jacques
On 6/15/12 2:45 PM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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/
|