Thoughts - Nomenclature and Taxonomy

As a topic that I've found some concern about: Even in so much as developing my own set of notes at Evernote -- and marking such notes in any ways meaningfully, with labeled tags -- I've begun to develop a sort of an ad hoc taxonomy about a number of concepts in computing.

Though I've not lately been refreshing my own study of the bibliography of taxonomy, it's a topic that I'm aware of as it existing, with potential applications in a number of theoretical contexts, including: Topic Maps, as in reference to the XTM topic maps format and Ontopia; the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS), as in reference to RDF, RDF Schema, and the Web Ontology Language (OWL); the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) as in reference to types of DITA topic elements. In an applications sense, I've observed that a concept of taxonomy may be relevant in regards to web services for content curation, web content annotation, and web content development, as in reference to both of Evernote and Diigo.

Both of Evernote and Diigo allow for annotation of web content. Evernote might seem to provide something more of a container view of web content, juxtaposed to Diigo. Diigo might seem to be more readily usable, at desktop PCs, for web content annotation. Evernote and Diigo both provide services towards content development – Diigo, with Diigo outliners, and Evernote with Evernote articles.

Focusing on the "Content tagging" features of each of Evernote and Diigo -- with a momentary reference to the original Annotea project of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) -- Evernote allows for hierarchical organization of content tags. This evening, I've noticed one simple example in which that occurs to a particular highlight: Annotating a concept of instruction set architecture, as of any of a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC), Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) or other species of instruction set architecture developed into a tangible microcontroller platform. Orthogonally, there's a concept of instruction set architecture denoted in MARTE 1.1.

To denote each of a concept of CISC and a concept of RISC as being subsumed by a concept of instruction set architecture, it may not seem all of ideally like a perfect taxonomy, but I think it suffices for my own personal notes, in my own Evernote notebooks. That there are any number of instruction set architectures that may not be immediately denoted as either CISC or RISC architectures, there's a whole history of computing that was developed before those terms became en vogue. Some of the literature of the earlier computing might seem particularly clear in developing concepts as with regards to logical microcontroller design, moreover.

I think, the classification of CISC and RISC concepts as being subsumed by a concept of an instruction set architecture, it provides both of a semantically meaningful construction and a flexible construct allowing for later description of instruction set architectures, such as may not be immediately identified as either CISC or RISC architectures -- however anyone may endeavor to define exact limits to a definition of either of those concepts, as implemented in any single, tangible microprocessor.

Of course, a concept of RISC and of CISC may likewise be subsumed of a concept of microprocessor architecture -- as by way of a concept of instruction set architecture.

This article -- which I had wanted to write, originally, about taxonomy -- it is, by now, also an article about concepts of instruction set architecture. The reader might notice that this article, moreover, is absent of any cross references to a Wiki. That's not to snub the WIki editor community, simply the reader may Google any number of these concepts. Personally, I think that my own study is better served with my own application of Evernote, Diigo, and towards a DITA model for content development, not to lead too much into any singular Wiki narrative.

This web log I keep, I think this is just a forum to be a little more chatty about some concepts, essentially outside of any specific social channels, online. I've been trolled, here, exactly once -- therefore, would expect anything similar again. Though I've yet to be trolled here any more than once, I now understand I must understand that I may be trolled, here, at any time. So, I'm naturally going to be a little more edgy-terse in writing at this, my tech web log -- might learn to be more cheerfully natured about the overall "Troll potential" of this supposedly anonymous Internet, though in no immediate sense of warmth for trolling. It sure makes it difficult to write about any cheerful concepts, here. I've a sense, that's by no means "Only Online," either. However momentarily flexible the Internet media might seem, of course, any single page with a comment section might become an instant forum for mud-slinging.

Why is anyone so ad hominem online? I honestly cannot imagine. I'm not one to escalate or deter anyone's own fantastic ideas, as such, either. Does that make me an easy target, online, or just a subtle observer of semantics, though? So sure, maybe sometimes I draw fire from an Internet troll. Big loss, huh?


Further than defining a correlation between a concept of CISC architectures, and a concept of RISC architectures, with both concepts being subsumed of a concept of Instruction Set Architectures -- and this, being represented simply in a set of Evernote 'tags' -- that concept then being subsumed of a concept of Microprocessor Architecture, I notice that all of these concepts may seem to fit well in an overall taxonomy of nomenclature about computing.  My being a student not so much of the nomenclature as much as of concepts denoted of the nomenclature, in computing, I wouldn't want to be tedious about nomenclature. I think, it's an idea towards keeping so much as my own webliography well organized -- not to say of any broader sense of bibliography, and how to integrate a bibliography system, and Evernote, and Diigo.

Of course, in thinking furthermore of developing a topic repository model onto DITA, I'm not thinking anything "Like FOLDOC", as FOLDOC is far too friendly a media for such a serious demeanor as I think I must have to keep, in most of communications immediately in the modern world online.  Sometimes, I can't help but have an impression that some lot of the readership might be just waiting to reach out and take a swipe at something -- judging only by previous experiences, no more wishful thinking from me for how people apparently are, online.

FOLDOC publishes a number of reference pages, itself, mostly in a colloquial reference. It's a manner of a topic-oriented reference base, about computing, alternate to Wikipedia.

So, there's already FOLDOC, no rush to develop any excess of an additional topic repository about contemporary concepts in computing -- any repository about information science, the physical sciences, mathematics, logic, and marketing, and anything else that may be defined about computing, including: Concepts of human-computer or human-machine interface design (HCI or HMI, respectively), HCI/HMI accessibility, or plain novelty.

FOLDOC exists, great thing.