{"id":1169,"date":"2013-02-11T13:23:43","date_gmt":"2013-02-11T12:23:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/preblogs.deusto.es\/abaitua\/?p=1169"},"modified":"2014-10-03T10:42:05","modified_gmt":"2014-10-03T08:42:05","slug":"canonical-knowledge-derived-from-wikipedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.deusto.es\/abaitua\/canonical-knowledge-derived-from-wikipedia\/","title":{"rendered":"Canonical knowledge<\/em> (derived from Wikipedia)"},"content":{"rendered":"

‘Canonical knowledge’ it is not a canonical<\/a> concept so far, or at least there is not enough scholarly production<\/a> that can be put forward to support it.\u00a0Therefore, it could not be a DBpedia<\/a> entity<\/a>, since\u00a0it cannot be the topic of a\u00a0Wikipedia article<\/a>\u00a0(which are the source of DBpedia entities). The picture below represents the LOD cloud<\/a>, that is, a collection of linked and open\u00a0datasets<\/a> hosted at\u00a0Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network<\/em>\u00a0(CKAN)<\/a>. In the very center of the cloud is DBpedia’s dataset.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Open<\/a>

LOD cloud diagram<\/p><\/div>\n

As an interpretation of this diagram, I will claim that data contained in the cloud are becoming canonical data, just because they\u00a0occupy\u00a0the place they\u00a0occupy, i.e. just because they are hosted at the DataHub<\/a> from the Open Knowledge Foundation<\/a>. I will also allege that a correct combination of such canonical data becomes canonical knowledge<\/em>, as it may be illustrated by\u00a0this\u00a0example of data mashup<\/a>\u00a0made by\u00a0SIG.MA<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This perception of ‘canonical knowledge’ is related to the traditional notion of ‘canon’, as explained by\u00a0Margaret Rouse<\/a> (2007):<\/p>\n

In the early Christian church, the ‘canon’ was the officially chosen text. In The New Hacker’s Dictionary, Eric Raymond tells us that the word meant ‘reed’ in its Greek and Latin origin, and a certain length of reed came to be used as a standard measure. In some knowledge areas, such as music and literature, the ‘canon’ is the body of work that everyone studies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

GR Kress (2003:173)<\/a> relates ‘canonical knowledge’ to school curricula, books on the shelves of libraries, and other authority channels:<\/p>\n

In the former era knowledge was assessed case by case, and that which passed muster was admitted to the status of\u00a0canonical knowledge<\/b>. Whether in the form of school curricula, or of the books on the shelves of libraries, or the `knowledge’ disseminated by the organs of the media, or knowledge emanating from anyone of a multitude of public institutions, it was clear what was and what was not knowledge.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The concept ‘canonical knowledge’ \u00a0is also connected to the theory of ‘Western canon’\u00a0that was developed by\u00a0Harold Bloom<\/a>\u00a0in his\u00a01994 book\u00a0The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages<\/b><\/i>. This a\u00a0summary\u00a0taken from Wikipidia:<\/p>\n

[In this book Bloom defends]\u00a0the concept of the Western canon<\/a>\u00a0by focusing on 26 writers whom he sees as central to the canon. It includes the “greatest<\/a>\u00a0works of\u00a0artistic merit<\/a>.” Such a\u00a0canon<\/a>\u00a0is important to the theory of\u00a0educational perennialism<\/a>\u00a0and the development of “high culture<\/a>“. The idea of a Canon has been used to address the question\u00a0What is Art?<\/i><\/a>; according to this approach, a work is art by comparison to the works in the canon, or conversely, any aesthetic law to be valid should not rule out any of the works included in the canon. In practice, debates and attempts to define the canon in lists are essentially restricted to\u00a0literature<\/a>, including\u00a0poetry<\/a>,\u00a0fiction<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0drama<\/a>; biographical and autobiographical writings;\u00a0philosophy<\/a>; and history. A few accessible books on the\u00a0sciences<\/a>\u00a0and mathematics are also included.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bearing all these arguments in mind, we may conclude that Wikipedia is becoming a central source for ‘canonical knowledge’. Anybody ready to discuss this position?<\/p>\n

Further readings<\/strong><\/p>\n