Last 10 changes


122 words
253 defs


[ Prev ] [ Next ]

2002-07-01 20:23:34 ]
2002-07-01 15:06:44 ]


This is going in warp.

I've read through all the mail about our paper on the portreview
list and attempted to flesh out some main points for our

(See also http://lab.bootstrap.org/port)

- universal agreement that the description is too general
  - terms vague (see below)
  - lack of clear example
  - lack of clear problem and goal statement
    - What will a faceted system provide, for who, how will they
      use it
    - But remember: we are not making the facet structure, we are
      making the system to help make it
      - Why is that?
    - Why is access important
      - In general
        - Closed world versus open world
        - Knowledge management versus knowledge generation
        - Archive versus annotation
        - Collaboration as convincing
      - For PORT
      - How is that different from other approaches
  - lack of model of intellectual and theoretical framework
    - augmentation not automation
      - idealogical motivators
      - small tool shims in big process
        - task analysis
        - why humans good for some tasks, why computers good at
    - need to describe
      - large human process
        - how does faceting work now
      - how is our process different
      - labor roadblock of cluster discovery
        - why we think this is responsive to automation (as
          opposed to something else)
  - lack of clear description of user task
    - what is coding
      - any reports of practice
    - what is traversal
    - what do you get when it is all done

- definitions and use of terms imprecise
  - especially
    - cluster
    - facet
      - this is the cruz of the biscuit
    - access structure
      (i think we should take care to distinguish between acces
       structures for retrieval (searching, browsing, class
       structures) and for reference (purple etc))
    - coding messages
    - term compared to concept
      - these are different
      - how?
      - use needs to be precise in paper

- Classic indexation system imprecise (Martin's primary bone)
  - Does not lead to real "concept" or "structure"
  - How is our version of a concept different, why is it?
  - Why is it better for the task we are attempting to augment?
  - Why don't we make a reference to FCA?
  - Why do we seem to be not so concerned with precision?

- Distinction between associative and formal representations
  - How is our system/idea a bridge between those and why is that
    - This is the main thrust of Uta's two postings
      - See them, they frame things well, give us entry points
  - Why are associative structures relevant to existing content
    - This provides hook into PORT content
       - Making distinctions between existing content, and
         generated (annotative) content

- Figures
  - Existing figures unclear (visually)
  - Existing figures point unclear
    - What do they represent
    - Need to clarify that they represent clusters before concept
      has been identified: that is, something is there, what is

[ Contact ] [ Old Blog ] [ New Blog ] [ Write ] [ AboutWarp ] [ Resume ] [ Search ] [ List Words ] [ Login ]