Esse artigo pode ser lido em:
This is another post based on videos I recorded some time ago, in which I shared on YouTube and LinkedIn some of the questions I ask myself. In today’s text, I ask myself, and share with you, the following inquiry:
How should the things we name be represented?
In one of my recently published posts, I discussed how things are defined; do you recall?
Here, I wish to reflect on how we intrinsically know what a thing is.
Let us consider the classic example of a chair.
How do we, as children, identify and name what a chair is? Regarding this name, this word—how do we, across different languages, agree within the groups to which we belong that we should assign the same name to something in the real world?
How do names exist in the world of ideas?
We represent the word chair—which stems from this “agreement” that the object bears that name—in the following way in Portuguese: CADEIRA. This is an arbitrary representation, created perhaps to conserve the physical medium upon which it would be written (paper, clay, wood), utilizing the letters we have devised.
This representation could be a drawing, an icon, or a figure, yet for some reason, we chose to represent it through signs we call letters, in a specific combination we call words.
Another example occurs when we observe a car, for instance. I need to tell someone that I saw that car, and since this person is not present, I must represent the object. How do I represent it? How do I visualize it in my mind and give form to this representation? I must represent what I saw through words for another person, and this representation must achieve the goal of effective communication.
Is it sufficiently effective for someone who has had no contact with that object?
This imaginary friend needs to understand my explanation, forming a mental image of the car I am discussing based on my description.
There are connections between naming things and representing them.
Is the word chair, in itself, adequate to represent the object to which I refer (and which you are now imagining)? Is it sufficiently representative of an ideal chair that resides in my mind and yours?
What level of fidelity can be achieved through a word-mediated representation when we need to represent a public figure or a work of art?
What level of fidelity can be achieved, for example, in representing a public figure?
Does a photograph represent a celebrity? What about a drawing, an illustration, or even a caricature, which lacks the same features yet somehow allows us to recognize the person?
Is this degree of representative fidelity based on the quality of the representation or other characteristics?
Representation and information retrieval: a matter of Semantic SEO?
Representing things in the world—or entities, in the language of Semantic SEO—may seem somewhat removed from our reality. However, it is through representation that we connect the concepts in our minds when we wish, for example, to prepare an article.
Having a clear vision of what we are representing and, crucially, how we are representing it, liberates us from a problem I frequently mention: ambiguity.
Being ambiguous when we want an algorithm to index and rank our content is asking for trouble. It is not simple for an automated system to understand the nuances of our language, and it is the responsibility of everyone working in SEO to assist in this process.
This video emerged from my research and readings on the Semantic Web, Semantic SEO, ontologies, and taxonomies. I have been asking myself these questions for a long time, and now I am beginning to share them with you.
