The ontological argument Terry Cook is making here, and throughout this article, is very important. It raises questions about the relation between objects - animate and inanimate - and their surroundings, the traces they produce, and the processes within which they are situated. How does one define a specific field or "object of study" when it is so deeply imbricated in another, or many others for that matter? While I agree in theory that her approach of macro-appraisals can serve to widen and enrich the scope of special collections, I would also argue that her position (and it top-down philosophy, as she puts it), produces a certain tension with the other reading we did this week - which advocates for the opposite approach; that is to say, a narrowing of collection development practices (of which appraising if of course a main step). While I know this article was written specifically with architecture in mind, I think it's fair to say it applies equally to other fields. The question then remains: How does one appropriately represent the "life world", as it were, of a particular field, while also working efficiently and within the bounds of reality? Furthermore, can one utilize a top-down approach to appraising and collection development without imposing a sort of prefigured idea of prospective research topics (as Cook argues against, yet, in my opinion, her position seems to confirm)? What is the balance between these two?