Trekkie Taxonomy

You know my fascination with unique applications of taxonomies. What you don’t know is how much of a sci-fi fan my husband is. So if I failed to report on this little gem, well, I might have to sleep on your couch for a while. As the third story in a multi-part series on taxonomy and speciation, this look at the infamous tricorder and how it relates to taxonomies is an interesting read.

This exciting and, oh, so interesting information was found on Boing Boing in their article, “The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek.” On Star Trek: The Original Series, the tricorder is a clunky, black device that in today’s techno-centric world would look like a toy and not even a cool one. What made the tricorder a great piece of fictional technology was its performance.

A portable tool that could quickly identify any species anywhere was captivating, but it isn’t much different from what a solid taxonomy can do today. A strong standards-based taxonomy is one with true integrity. Access Innovations is one of a very small number of companies able to help its clients generate ANSI/ISO/W3C-compliant taxonomies.

Melody K. Smith

Sponsored by Data Harmony, a unit of Access Innovations, the world leader in indexing and making content findable.

A Short History of Thesauri

We know of one Sanskrit thesaurus, the Amarakosha (Treasury or Dictionary of Amara), written by Buddhist scholar Amara Simha around 375 or 400 AD. Interestingly, it was written in verse. (The only other terminology in verse I can think of offhand is the one-L lama one by Ogden Nash, but I don’t think that bears comparison to the Amarakosha.)

Reportedly, the Amarakosha was almost lost to posterity. As the story goes, Amara heard of a highly respected philosopher who was traveling and wanted to engage in debate with him. Amara freaked out and burned his manuscripts to avoid the other philosopher’s scrutiny. Fortunately, the visiting philosopher snatched the thesaurus from the flames. So now, Indian schoolchildren learn to recite the verses of the Amarakosha from memory. And Sanskrit scholars still study the text.

Jumping way ahead, we inevitably encounter Roget’s Thesaurus written in 1805 and first published in 1852 as the Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. (The full title was actually Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition.) The Roget behind the thesaurus was Peter Mark Roget (1779-1869), a British physician who battled depression by making lists, including the thesaurus.

 

As most of you know, Roget’s Thesaurus is still being updated and published on a frequent basis, and is widely used by writers. What you might not realize is that it is hierarchical to several levels, and so may be regarded as a classification system. In fact, according to the Wikipedia webpage on Roget’s Thesaurus, “The Wikipedia “category schemes” … are based on the classification system of Roget’s Thesaurus, as evidenced by the outline from the 1911 US edition.” This puts Roget’s in the tradition of hierarchical classification systems that are also thesauri. The practice is so predominant that “thesaurus” now generally means a taxonomy with synonyms (along with other annotations and relationships).

The computer age brought further developments, many of which we’ve covered elsewhere in this series. One area of development was that of guidelines and standards to promote successful information retrieval. And one major landmark in that area was the set of guidelines created by the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) of the Federal Council on Science and Technology (which evolved into CENDI). COSATI developed the guidelines in conjunction with creation of the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST), published in 1967. Except for a DuPont thesaurus from the 1950s that was not widely disseminated, TEST may have been the first thesaurus created with the goal of computer-based information retrieval.

Since TEST, numerous thesauri, large and small, have been developed for information retrieval. National and international guidelines and standards have emerged. And new technologies, formats, and methodologies for creating connections among terms have appeared. It’s a brave new world.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President Access Innovations

 

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

Triumph Learning Partners with Access Innovations on Common Core Standards-Integrated Taxonomy

Triumph Learning LLC, a New York-based print and digital educational content company, has partnered with Access Innovations, Inc., a leader in taxonomy development, to create a new, state-of-the-art taxonomy designed to precisely align standards-based instructional content for all grades in the K– 12 education market.

To help Triumph Learning manage its content development more effectively, Access Innovations designed and built a structured vocabulary relevant for teaching mathematics and English language arts. The taxonomy contains terms reflecting concepts, skills, and learning standards in a hierarchical structure.

“Standards-aligned vocabulary provided one major axis for the integrated taxonomy,” noted Kirk Sanders, project manager at Access Innovations. “We tied Triumph’s robust publishing terminology with Common Core progressive standards in a dynamic new format that will make the content both more searchable and more discoverable.”

The Common Core State Standards provide concepts and terminology that Triumph Learning writers and editors can use to link pieces of content such as instruction and practice activities, as well as other supplemental material, to corresponding grade-level standards.

“By using Access Innovations expertise we will be able to properly align our content for both teachers and students,” said Aoife Dempsey, Chief Technology Officer at Triumph Learning.  “These new taxonomies, along with our backend recommendation application, helps assure the right content, aligned to the right standards, get to the right students.”

Using the taxonomy tools from Access Innovations, creator of the Data Harmony software suite, Triumph Learning can quickly and accurately absorb state-specific standards so it can rapidly develop targeted products as individual states and educator groups seek curriculum materials based on the Common Core and other state standards.

About Access Innovations, Inc. – www.accessinn.com, www.dataharmony.com, www.taxodiary.com

Founded in 1978, Access Innovations has extensive experience with Internet technology applications, master data management, database creation, thesaurus/taxonomy creation, and semantic integration. Access Innovations’ Data Harmony software includes automatic indexing, thesaurus management, an XML Intranet System (XIS), and metadata extraction for content creation developed to meet production environment needs.  Data Harmony is used by publishers, governments, and corporate clients throughout the world.

 

About Triumph Learning LLC – www.triumphlearning.com

Triumph Learning, LLC, is the leading publisher of K-12 Common Core resources, standards-aligned instructional materials, and effective literacy programs.  Our state-customized products increase student achievement and raise scores on high-stakes exams.  We offer unique student solutions, robust teacher support, and professional development opportunities.  Imprints include Triumph Online, Coach, Buckle Down, Options, Plugged-in to Reading, and The BookJam.  Triumph Learning is committed to serving 21^st-century learners with a mix of interactive digital tools and innovative student texts.

 

About the Common Core State Standards Initiative – www.corestandards.org

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

Ranganathan, Classification, and British Toys

I’ve mentioned Ranganathan briefly in some earlier posts. Let’s look at his innovations and influence from a historical perspective.

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan (1892-1972) was an Indian mathematician and librarian. His academic training was in mathematics, in which subject he earned two degrees. He taught mathematics and wrote several articles on the history of mathematics. These articles worked to his advantage when the University of Madras was seeking someone with a research background to fill the post of University Librarian. Ranganathan applied because the job paid better than his professorship at the same university.

And what about Ranganathan’s background in librarianship? Well, a few days before the interview, he had read up on the subject in the Encyclopædia Britannica.

He got the job, but he found that it didn’t offer much intellectual stimulation or professional interaction with students and colleagues. In short, he was bored stiff. So he asked for his prior position as a math professor back. The position was held for him until he returned from his training in modern librarianship at the University College London. He would be allowed to choose which position to stay with after returning from his librarianship studies. After nine months of study in London, Ranganathan received an honors certificate from the University College. His mathematical training gave him a unique perspective on the problems of classification and other library matters, and he returned to his library position eager to put his ideas into practice.

During his time in England, Ranganathan visited over 100 libraries to observe their operation. His observations of both their shortcomings and the overall superiority of their methods over those of India led him to develop some egalitarian principles, published in 1931 as The Five Laws of Library Science. The five laws are as follows:

1) Books are for use.

2) Every reader his book.

3) Every book its reader.

4) Save the time of the reader.

5) A library is a growing organism.

In the five laws, we can see Ranganathan’s interest in access to information for everyone. This interest dovetailed with his work in classification science. He perceived that existing classification systems were not entirely suited for accommodating new areas of knowledge. He knew that a new, flexible approach was needed.

What happened next (well, actually, in 1924), as described by noted information scientist Eugene Garfield in his first essay on Ranganathan, was pure inspiration:

“As so often happens in scientific discovery, this vague notion was fully conceptualized only with the help of an unlikely catalyst. For Isaac Newton, according to legend, the catalyst was a falling apple. For Friedrich Kekulé, discoverer of the benzene ring, it was a snake with a tail in its mouth that appeared to him in a dream. For Ranganathan, it was a toy erector set at Selfridge’s, the London department store. There he saw a salesperson create an entirely new toy with each new combination of metal strips, nuts, and bolts. This experience made Ranganathan realize that his classification scheme should likewise consist of elements that could be freely combined to meet the needs of each specific subject.”*

As it happened, the classification system that Ranganathan devised, known as Colon Classification, was never widely adopted. However, the theory behind it had enormous impact on classification and indexing science. According to Garfield, in his second essay on the famed librarian, “Ranganathan is to library science what Einstein is to physics.”**

Thanks, in part, to Meccano toys, Ranganathan is widely regarded these days as the father of library science.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President Access Innovations

 

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

*Eugene Garfield. “A Tribute to S.R. Ranganathan, the Father of Indian Library Science. Part 1. Life and Works,” Current Contents No. 6, pp. 5-12 (February 6, 1984). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 7. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pp. 37-44 (1985).

**Eugene Garfield. “A Tribute to S.R. Ranganathan, the Father Library Science. Part 2. Contribution to Indian and International Library Science,” Current Contents No. 7, pp. 3-7 (February 13, 1984). Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Volume 7. Philadelphia: ISI Press, pp. 45-49 (1985).

Metadata Providing Structure

M-Files has received a cash infusion to further their growth. The Finnish enterprise content management platform does away with traditional folder structures by relying entirely on metadata to help people find documents. Gigaom brought this news to our attention in their article, “Metadata-centric enterprise content management firm M-Files scores €6M in funding.” M-Files works across the cloud as well as on-premise or hybrid installations.

“Everyone says that metadata is important, but quite often it’s something users have to add when they are storing documents,” CEO Miika Mäkitalo commented. Metadata can be considered bread crumbs, but it works best when referenced against a solid taxonomy. Access Innovations wants you to have access to your data. They are one of a very small number of companies able to help its clients generate ANSI/ISO/W3C-compliant taxonomies.

Melody K. Smith

Sponsored by Data Harmony, a unit of Access Innovations, the world leader in indexing and making content findable.

Theory of Knowledge: 19th and 20th Century Developments

In the 19^th century, the study of the nature of knowledge came to be known as epistemology. The term was introduced by Scottish metaphysic James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Epistemological writers explored how knowledge relates to connected notions, such as belief and truth. They also considered the means of production of knowledge. And to a large extent, they embraced skepticism. a mode of thinking that required information to be well supported by evidence before it could be accepted as fact, i.e., knowledge.

Here we see how philosophy and science were developing hand in hand. This continued into the 20^th century. The study of knowledge broadened in response to understandings contributed by psychology (especially in memory and perception), library science, linguistics, and computer science. Information science became a separate field, covering such things as linguistic analysis and vocabulary control.

But I digress. Speaking of library science, let’s go back to the 19^th century, which saw the rise of classification.

As far as I’m concerned, the hero of classification systems is Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903).

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a librarian at Harvard College, Cutter invented the card catalog. (Before that, library holdings were listed in published books. Yuck.) His system used an author index, and a “class catalog”, or subject index. Here we see the beginnings of modern approaches to subject matter classification.

Later, influenced by the decimal system of Melvil Dewey, Cutter came up with the Cutter Expansive Classification system. It had seven levels of classification, each with increasing specificity. However, you could use the lower levels and still be specific.

According to library historian Leo E. LaMontagne, “Cutter produced the best classification of the nineteenth century. [Its] key features – notation, specificity, and versatility – make it deserving of the praise it has received.” Unfortunately, Cutter died before he could finish his classification system. However, it is still used by many small libraries, and it served as a foundation for the Library of Congress subject headings.

Proof that Cutter was a forward-looking thinker can be found in his article, “The Boston Public Library in 1983” (no, that’s not a typo), published in 1883. Here’s one of Cutter’s predictions that appeared in the article:

“The desks had every convenience that could facilitate study; but what most caught my eye was a little key-board at each, connected by a wire with the librarian’s desk. The reader had only to find the mark of his book in the catalog, touch a few lettered or numbered keys, and on the instant a runner at the central desk started for the volume, and, appearing after an astonishingly short interval at the door nearest his desk, brought him his book and took his acknowledgment without disturbing any of the neighboring readers.”

Of course, we can’t forget Melvil Dewey (1851-1931), inventor of the Dewey Decimal Classification (or, if you prefer, the Dewey Decimal System).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think most of us are already familiar with the DDC. Or you might know of the Universal Decimal Classification, which is based on the DDC.

So what’s so great about the DDC? Someone asked that very question in 2006. The query continued,

“It seems obvious that if you have to categorize a huge number of objects (say, books for example), you would set up a set of unique categories, sort the objects into the appropriate category, and then itemize the objects within that category. Is Dewey famous just because it’s the standard, or is there more to the system that makes it so great?”

Dex, of The Straight Dope, answered, in part:

“What’s obvious to you, the jaded library patron, wasn’t so obvious in the era before Melvil Dewey. Once a creative genius comes up with an innovation, a century later everyone thinks it’s obvious. If you think it’s so easy, you come up with a system for classifying all knowledge that ever was and ever will be.”

 

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President, Access Innovations

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

Theory of Knowledge: 18th Century Developments

Last time, we mentioned biological taxonomy. This leads us inevitably to Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), a Swedish zoologist and botanist. We regard him as the “father of modern taxonomy.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contrary to popular belief, Linnaeus did not invent the binomial nomenclature system, with organism types designated by genus and species. That honor belongs to the Bauhin brothers, Gaspar (1560-1624) and Johann (1541-1613). The two Swiss brothers formalized the then-existing method of (often vague and wordy) polynomial nomenclature, introducing a stricter, more logical system with one word for the genus and one for the species.

However, the Bauhin brothers did not consistently use binomial nomenclature in their work. Linnaeus did. Moreover, Linnaeus used a more scientific and consistent approach, with numerous rules or principles to ensure taxonomic orderliness. This approach included guidance for such things as indicating synonyms, maintaining clarity and succinctness of terminology, and avoiding “anonymous” (or, as we occasionally see in taxonomies, “other”). As T. A.Sprague summarizes:

“Linnaeus was, first and foremost, a systematist, whose aim was to bring order out of chaos in the classification of living organisms. . . . Descriptions of the individual genera were supplied in the successive editions of his “Genera Plantarum”, and diagnoses [differentiating descriptions; cf. definitions and scope notes] of the species with their principal synonyms in his “Species Plantarum”. In order that these descriptions and diagnoses might be clearly intelligible, he provided a system of terminology applicable to the various morphological categories recognized by him. Finally, for convenience of reference, he selected a name, old or new, for each of the genera upheld by him, and in 1753, a true binary name … for each of his species, designed to replace the often cumbrous diagnostic phrases under which they had previously passed.”

As a naturalist, Linnaeus was well equipped to place individual species in the various categories, or genera, that he either devised or adopted from previous naturalists’ works. (Many of these groupings are still recognized by botanists and zoologists.) Going broader than that, he systematized the kingdoms of nature in his Systema Naturae. (Yes, it’s the animal, vegetable, mineral scheme.) The full title translates as “System of nature through the three kingdoms of nature, according to classes, orders, genera and species, with characters, differences, synonyms, places”. True taxonomic hierarchy, with characteristics of a thesaurus.

The 18^th century also saw changes in the philosophy of knowledge. One highly influential writer was the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kant’s major work was the Critique of Pure Reason, first published in 1781. In that work, Kant discusses the nature of a priori and a posteriori judgments and concepts, challenging earlier philosophical writings on the subject. Roughly speaking, a priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience; that is, it is non-empirical, or arrived at beforehand, usually by reason. In contrast, a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience; that is, it is empirical, or arrived at after experience and observation.

Here is a diagram of Kant’s system of thought, as explained in the Critique of Pure Reason:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as Linnaeus presented the world with a taxonomy of nature, Kant presented the world with a taxonomy of knowledge.

Next time, we’ll move on to the 19^th century.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President, Access Innovations

 

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

Theory of Knowledge: The Age of Enlightenment

The 17^th century ushered in some new ways of thinking about knowledge. One of the 17^th-century philosophers who studied the nature of knowledge (among many other things) was René Descartes (1596-1650), who concerned himself with the nature of knowledge (among many other things).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descartes is perhaps best known to us as the writer of “I think, therefore I am.” As a mathematician, he also established some of the principles of modern algebra and symbolic logic.

Descartes’ famous Wax Argument is of particular interest to us as taxonomists. In that writing, he argued that to classify something just according to its characteristics is a questionable approach. He considered a piece of wax, whose characteristics change as it becomes warm. Think about it.

 

 

 

Descartes used the Wax Argument to support his position that perception is unreliable, and that we acquire knowledge through deduction.

Next is John Locke (1632-1704), an English physician and philosopher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he maintained that at birth, the human mind is a blank slate, and that all knowledge is acquired through perception and experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Locke identified three kinds of knowledge, differing both in the way the knowledge is acquired and in the degree of certainty they provide:

• Intuitive knowledge provides the highest degree of certainty.
• Demonstrative knowledge provides less certainty.
• Sensitive knowledge provides the lowest degree of certainty, which can be thought of as probability.

Book III of the Essay is devoted to an exploration of the relationships between words and concepts, an area of particular interest to us in connection with controlled vocabularies. As for classification, and biological taxonomy in particular, Locke starts from the old idea of “essences”. Watch for his comments relating classification to characteristics, and on the arbitrariness that is sometimes unavoidable in classification:

“Academic wrangling about genus and species has had the effect of almost entirely suppressing that original meaning of ‘essence’. Instead of referring to the real constitutions of things, essences these days are usually thought of in a second way, in which they are connected with the artificial constitution of genus and species. Real constitutions are ones that are laid down in the things themselves; artificial ones are products of human artifice, that is, of human classificatory procedures·. When people talk in this way, they assume that each sort of things has a real constitution; and it is unquestionably true that any collection of simple ideas [‘qualities’] that regularly go together must be based on some real constitution. But the fact remains that when things are classified into sorts or species, and named accordingly, what we go by are the abstract ideas with which we have associated those names. The essence of each genus or sort—that is, what fixes the sort, what determines membership in it—is just the abstract idea that the general name stands for. This, we shall find, is how ‘essence’ is mostly used. These two sorts of essences could reasonably be called the real and the nominal essence respectively.”

“Nominal essences are tied to names. Whether a given thing x is to be described by a given general name depends purely on whether x has the essence that makes it conform to the abstract idea that the name is associated with.”

“There are two opinions about the real essences of bodies. Some people think there is a certain limited number of real essences according to which all natural things are made. Each particular thing, they believe, exactly fits one of these essences, and thus belongs to one species. These folk use the word ‘essence’ without knowing what essences are. Others have a more reasonable view: according to them, the essence of a natural thing is the real but unknown constitution of its imperceptible parts, from which flow the perceptible qualities on the basis of which we classify things into sorts under common names. The former of these opinions, which takes essences to be a certain number of forms or moulds into which all natural things are poured (so to speak) has created great confusion in the knowledge of natural things. In every animal species, births frequently occur, and … sometimes produce … strange products …; and all this poses problems for this hypothesis about real essences …. Even apart from those difficulties, the mere fact that these ‘first-opinion’ real essences can’t be known means that they are useless to us in classifying things, although they are supposed to mark off the real boundaries of the species! In our thoughts about classification, then, we ought to set these supposed real essences aside—and, for the same reason, set aside ‘second-opinion’ real essences as well—and content ourselves with knowable essences of sorts or species. When we think the matter through, we shall see that these are, as I have said, nothing but the abstract complex ideas with which we have associated separate general names.”

I think that’s enough to chew on as far as the 17^th century is concerned. In the next installment, we’ll look at biological classification and other developments in the 18^th century.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President, Access Innovations

 

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

Theory of Knowledge: Philosophic Beginnings

At their core, taxonomies and other classification systems are ways of organizing and managing knowledge. To understand the history of classification systems, it behooves us to explore the history of thinking about knowledge.

So what is knowledge? The Greek philosopher Plato defined it as “justified true belief”. However, the twentieth-century writer Bertrand Russell commented that “at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true.”

Let’s back up to philosophy again, which is where we find the roots of theories of knowledge. Early philosophy encompassed several fields of knowledge, including some we’d expect (logic, metaphysics, theology, and ethics), as well as some we wouldn’t (physics, nature, and mathematics). Nowadays, philosophy encompasses (or is closely associated with) metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and logic, while science, mathematics, and the like are their own domains.

Theory of knowledge began early. I’ve already mentioned Plato, who was born around 427 or 428 BC and died around 347 or 348 AD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plato’s stance was that knowledge of reality is what philosophy is all about. What we can take from this is that knowledge is all about understanding reality. Platonic realism connected knowledge with perception and observation of reality. The philosophy of realism was elaborated on by Saint Augustine (354-430 AD).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thinking was that characteristics are what define objects (and, we might interject, classes of objects). Objects with different characteristics are not the same kind of object.

Then we come to William of Occam (or Ockham) (c. 1288 – c. 1348), an English friar and philosopher. His take on shared characteristics was a bit different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ockham rejected the shared universals as essences of some sort. He pioneered the metaphysical philosophy of nominalism, according to which shared types or characteristics can be represented by words.

As the Wikipedia article on nominalism explains:

“One wants to know in virtue of what are Fluffy and Kitzler both cats, and what makes the grass, the shirt, and Kermit green. The realist answer is that all the green things are green in virtue of the existence of a universal; a single abstract thing, in this case, that is a part of all the green things. With respect to the color of the grass, the shirt and Kermit, one of their parts is identical. In this respect, the three parts are literally one. Greenness is repeatable because there is one thing that manifests itself wherever there are green things.”

Felinity – represented by cats

* * Fluffy

 

 

 

* * Kitzler

 

 

 

 

Greenness – represented by green things

* * Grass

 

 

 

* * The green shirt

 

 

 

* * Kermit

 

 

 

As a conceptualist, Ockham ended up taking a stance between realism and nominalism. He maintained that universals exist, but as general concepts. They are dependent on our minds, and formed by extraction from particular experiences. So in the scheme below, we are the Knowers, and the concepts are the Known.

 

 

 

 

 

In the next installment, we’ll jump to the 17^th century.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President, Access Innovations

 

Note: The above posting is one of a series based on a presentation, The Theory of Knowledge, given at the Data Harmony Users Group meeting in February of 2011. The presentation covered the theory of knowledge as it relates to search and taxonomies.

In Memory of Dr. Peter Noerr

Dr. Peter Noerr was a towering intellectual force in the backrooms of the information industry. Quiet, infinitely curious, he created two systems and helped with many more. In his early days in South Africa he automated mining operations. Later he moved to Sweden and then to the UK. He created the TinLib system for IME. After selling that company he became MuseGlobal’s founder a federated search and retrieval system which operates as middle ware in many of the systems we use today. Most recently he was MuseGlobal’s Chief Scientist and Chief Technology Officer. He died of cancer on Friday, March 15, 2013. He remained “Peter” to the end, full of ideas, inventions and improvements — as those who know him will be so familiar with. His technology legacy will continue in the systems he created but also in the thoughts he so freely shared and pondered with others. like me. I met Pete at the Cranfield meeting in 1979. Discussions with the people I met there opened up a whole world of information and options for dealing with it. 

For anyone who wishes to honor his memory, Peter requested that a donation be made to the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. If anyone wishes to contact his wife Kate Noerr, she can be reached by email or by postal mail at MuseGlobal, Inc. One Embarcadero Center Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 U.S.A.

Marjorie M.K. Hlava, President Access Innovations

Next Page »