On 4/26/11 7:21 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 2:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 4/26/11 1:41 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2011 8:56 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> I would also point out that "public access" does not enable anyone to
>>>>> make meaningful analysis of data.
>>>> Publicly available information is a nice base from which to re-engineer
>>>> data sources and underlying data models constrained by some kind of
>>>> ontology. That's what middleware facilitates in the data realm today.
>>>> We reverse engineer knowledge, information, and data everyday as
>>>> cognitive beings. Computers are simply catching up to what we've done
>>>> for eons :-)
>>> You missed my point.
>> Sorry I did not :-)
>>> Availability of data != Competence to analyze data.
>> I didn't imply that. It doesn't work that way in the real-world so why
>> would it be any different if the data is digital?
>>> And since you mention it, middleware cannot confer competence to analyze
>>> data either.
>> "competence" is subjective, just like "quality" when dealing with data.
>> You have two constants that are timelessly critical: data and context
>> lenses of the beholder.
> Subjective or not, your middleware cannot confer competence. (01)
I never made any reference to "my middleware". In fact, I made reference
to the Internet + WWW combo (InterWeb) as middleware. (02)
>>> Given the lack of experience at the depths Deep Horizon was operating,
>>> even detailed information would have been of little use to anyone
>>> outside a fairly narrow pool of experts.
>> Not so, and not my point.
> How is that "Not so...."? (03)
Who is the mythical judge and jury in this context fluid realm? The is
ultimately about aligning "context lenses" via conversation. (04)
>> I am saying, every action that results in the creation of data at an
>> Address is really part of a conversation (of sorts). Put differently,
>> interacting with data via Addresses is akin to interacting with jigsaw
>> puzzle. The InterWeb just adds scale. Remember, URIs are basically data
>> conduction mechanisms. The ubiquity of the InterWeb alters the scale of
>> jigsaw puzzle and players of the jigsaw puzzle game.
> To quote your incessant "inherently subjective" line, that applies to
> your "Interweb" and its utility as well. (05)
Of course it does. When have I somehow implied to you that my own view
points aren't inherently subjective?
>>> Middleware might assist those experts but they would need domain
>>> expertise before the software would be of any use.
>> There is never a time when Subject Matter expertise isn't relevant, the
>> issue is that the aforementioned designation is inherently subjective
>> due to context fluidity that's inherent in cognitive space.
> I can't tell what you meant to say with that paragraph. I await further
> clarification. (06)
I gave you an example re. Internet + WWW == middleware, above :-)
>> The key remains this, re. the global InterWeb: just make your
>> contribution. The Global WWW is just middleware too, it is situated (re.
>> data conduction) between 'You', 'Others', and 'I' :-)
> Key to what? A roar of noise (data) that may or may not be relevant,
> useful, correct, etc.? (07)
Quality of any signal is subjective. (08)
> Hope you are having a great day!
>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>>>> Patrick (09)
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen (012)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (013)