Dear datum describers,
Let’s suppose that a “datum”
is a statement about anything. It is a statement describing a projection
that some interpreting agent can express. I can describe a unified,
interpreted Thing using a plurality of datums (often, “data”
represents “a bunch of datums”).
That datum can be expressed as a string of
characters, a sequence of words, a mathematical constraint _expression_, a video,
a document, or any other _expression_ you can think of.
So if you want to represent it as an FOL Thing,
with properties, relationships, instances, and the usual expressions of the
Thing, the infrastructure is already available from past representations in
math.
But most of the datums I see every day are
far more complex than a few FOL statements can describe. Things are very,
very complex, in the typical case of the internet of things.
Below
are some expressive descriptions of Things in that sense, and therefore of
datums.
Here is an impassioned and broad
description of what users of the “internet of things” will be able
to work with:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html
The really nice thing is that the
presenter doesn’t use the many trifling analogies that are confined to
logic, the w3c, or agendafied organizations; he discusses the useful everyday
effects which we as individuals will experience.
He picks out some example effects, which
he bases on common daily problems and challenges we have to manipulate.
He doesn’t go into HOW any of it is done, and doesn’t try to force
fit his structuring to any standards whatsoever. He presents it as though
there will be common approaches which evolve due to their usefulness, not due
to standards which are imposed by some group.
He paints a picture in which all people
using the evolving web are free to choose their goals, tools and approaches, to
evaluate by their own value systems, to describe, store and communicate ideas
in their raw form using whatever modeling representation is available to
them.
The presenter is Kevin Kelly, who also has
other TED talks on the same theme. Here is his talk on “How
Technology Involves”:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves.html
He claims there is a fundamental
difference between how technology evolves and how biology evolves.
Specifically, once a biological class has become extinct, new classes can’t
evolve from that extinct class, and by definition extinct classes have no
instance classes.
But with a technology class, the parts can
be reorganized, recombined into new classes through the magic of
interpreters. So he concludes that technology classes never fade
out. He makes a substantial case to support that by showing that stone
knives and axes are still being made, though there are other classes which are
far better in every figure of merit, but were still being made today, and sold
in the New Earth Catalog, on the web, and so forth.
It’s
a very interesting analogical projection from biological classes through
technological classes, their similarities and differences. I highly
recommend it.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2