User talk:Gilles/BlogEntry: 2008 April 11 22:40:17 EAT
From KLAMediaWiki
m |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The 21 actionable themes are in a sense much wider than trade. "Trade and transportation" is indeed only one of the 21 actionable themes! On the other hand, trade is in itself an enormous area of activities, which has its own classification systems. | The 21 actionable themes are in a sense much wider than trade. "Trade and transportation" is indeed only one of the 21 actionable themes! On the other hand, trade is in itself an enormous area of activities, which has its own classification systems. | ||
| - | To be sure, cross-classifications may be as necessary as classifications. Thus it is probably useful to cross-classify the trade-related activities of the WSF | + | To be sure, cross-classifications may be as necessary as classifications. Thus it is probably useful to cross-classify the trade-related activities of the WSF participants according to the 21 actionable themes. I would like to hear what librarians think about this! |
The classification of trade in itself is a big subject. The classification of services, for instance, have repeatedly led to dispute. It will also be a challenge for the Wiki-WTO to adopt good classifications of trade. | The classification of trade in itself is a big subject. The classification of services, for instance, have repeatedly led to dispute. It will also be a challenge for the Wiki-WTO to adopt good classifications of trade. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 15 April 2008
Gilles,
it seems to me (but correct me if I am wrong) that you propose to use the 21 actionable themes of the WSF (the ones we use at WSF library) to classify the information on the Wiki-WTO (or the Wiki-ITO, which seems to be an alternative name for the project) .
But have you noticed, that the 21 themes are in fact meant to cover the activities of the WSF? Can the same 21 themes be applied to (the rules of) world trade? Obviously, the trade activities and the activities of the WSF are very different!
The 21 actionable themes are in a sense much wider than trade. "Trade and transportation" is indeed only one of the 21 actionable themes! On the other hand, trade is in itself an enormous area of activities, which has its own classification systems.
To be sure, cross-classifications may be as necessary as classifications. Thus it is probably useful to cross-classify the trade-related activities of the WSF participants according to the 21 actionable themes. I would like to hear what librarians think about this!
The classification of trade in itself is a big subject. The classification of services, for instance, have repeatedly led to dispute. It will also be a challenge for the Wiki-WTO to adopt good classifications of trade.
The basic classes, which are used in the context of the WTO, are four : trade in material goods (covered by GATT); trade in services (covered by GATS) ; trade in agriculture (covered by AoA); trade with intellectual property rights such as patents and copyrights (covered by TRIPS).
The "Services sectoral classification list" (under GATS) is a fascinating (and in practice often disputable) classification system, which tries to cover almost everything (combined with the Neoliberal credo that all services should ne liberalized, it amounts to putting the whole world on sale!) The list is divided in 12 main sectors (classes): 1. BUSINESS SERVICES , 2 COMMUNICATION SERVICES, 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED ENGINEERING SERVICES, 4. DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, 5. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, 7. FINANCIAL SERVICES , 8. HEALTH RELATED AND SOCIAL SERVICES, 9. TOURISM AND TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES, 10. RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SPORTING SERVICES , 11. TRANSPORT SERVICES, and 12. OTHER SERVICES NOT INCLUDED ELSEWHERE. Under each of these you have numerous subsectors. "Libraries, museums and archives", for instance are included as one of five sub-sectors in sector 10.
We need to speak about classifications of classifications, too. I think there are two major types: classifications of knowledge and classifications of activities. I am here following a very traditional view, which corresponds to the distinction between theory and praxis.
The Decimal Classification, one of the standard library classification systems of libraries, is obviously a classification of knowledge. The Faculties of the universities (Theological, Juridical, Philosophical etc) is another classification of knowledge.
The most widely used classification of activities (praxis) which I know of is the list of ministries or departments of the modern national state: Ministry of Education, Department of Defense, Minstry of Justice, Ministry of the Environment, Department of Commerce etc.
In my opinion, the 21 actionable themes of the WSF come quite close to a list of government departments, only that the WSF activities tend to be global, and not related to just one specific state and government. The 21 actionable themes can also be called a list of 21 major problems. These problems are also areas of human action. Indeed, life on the planet depends on these problems being acted upon.
Why are classifications needed at all? This is like asking: what do we have concepts for? What is the purpose of language? Even: What is the meaning of a word? And indeed: why are there librarians?
Operating on the wiki-mode, as you say, helps overcome distances and language barriers, and to shape worlwide projects at very low cost. The .wiki-mode , it must be added, should help to bring about world self-government. The internet makes government through cyberspace possible. This will ultimately mean government by library, because the cyberspace is an extension of the library. --Book 23:44, 15 April 2008 (EAT)
