Re: [kDev] Re: Metacrap -- and now read this...

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi there Neil and All,

Yes, I pretty much agree with these 2 guys that centralising 
definitions of metadata doesn't work very well. Which, I guess, is the 
whole back bone of metadata (correct me if I'm wrong). Oh dear...

That's exactly why I've been saying in the project plan that we need to 
enable people to talk in their own language and then allow anyone to 
suggest links between different people's talkings.

Unfortunately, Neil, the more I think about this the more I think that 
"data mining semi-structured data" as a foundation of kendraTools 
doesn't work so well. Pull me back from the brink, please do!

We are both after the same goal: letting people talk in the way that 
they want to. You seem to be saying: let people write free form or 
semi-structured text and then pass through filters to derive structure 
and relationships. Whereas, I think we can achieve far more accurate 
reporting of people's ideas if we get them to enter their relationships 
as they enter the actual data. Is their even a difference between 
relationship and data? Could they collectively be called concepts?

I'm concerned that the mined data looses it's link with the original 
data and so traceability and hence accountability are lost. I want to 
have a system is far more fluid and cohesive than what we've seen so 
far. I want people to be able to make links between ideas and objects 
and hence build the structure. Test1 gives us a bit of that, no?

Actually, there's no reason why one shouldn't first enter free form 
text or semi-structured data or very-structured data or just 
structure/relationships and then go back later and add in or modify or 
filter whatever was needed. But the important thing is that the data 
mining is an inherent part of the system and is logged and tracked just 
as the data and structure, yes?

OK. Are we in agreement now? I think I've just press the all-inclusive 
button! ;-)

Off topic: I have a lot to say about what Cory and Matthew wrote but 
I'll leave it for now. Suffice to say that if one wishes to view the 
web as serendipitous then I hope it assists one in creating what one 
wants to create. It doesn't work for me as a tool.

Cheers Daniel

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:49  pm, Neil Harris wrote:
> Here's a wonderful critique of metadata by Cory Doctorow.
> http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:54  pm, Neil Harris wrote:
> ...and this is a reaction to it.  What I think is great here is the 
> idea of data mining semi-structured data, which this author suggests 
> as the answer to Doctorow's criticisms. This seems to fit with the 
> Kendra ideal...
> http://mpt.phrasewise.com/2003/01/27#a446