On Friday 12 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> "to understand a piece of information and its "information objects",
> (eg words) , is to "realise" (or know) how they refer to "real
> objects" in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily,  to
> be able to point to and engage with those real objects)."

This is usually called sourcing and citations, and so on. It's not 
enough to have a citation though, it's not enough to just have a 
symbolic representation of some part of the world beyond you within 
your system, you always have to be able to functionally and competently 
use those references, citations, or links in some useful manner, 
otherwise you're not grounded and you're off in la-la land.

Computers have offered us the chance to encapsulate and manage all of 
these citations (and so on) but in many cases they are citations that 
are limited and crude. Look at the difference between these two 
citations:

Tseng, A. A., Notargiacomo A. & Chen T. P. Nanofabrication by scanning 
probe microscope lithography: A review. J. Vac. Sci. Tech. B 23, 877–
894 (2005).

Compared to:

http://heybryan.org/graphene.html

Both would seem cryptic to any outsider to scientific literature or to 
the web. The first one is generally variablized across the literature, 
making OCR very difficult, and making it generally a challenge to 
always fetch the citations and refs in papers for researchers. Take a 
look at my attempts at OCR of bibliographies:

http://heybryan.org/projects/autoscholar/

"Not good" is an accurate summarization. With the HTTP string, it's not 
any better at all, *except* the fact that DNS servers are widely 
implemented, here's how to implement one, here's how the DNS root 
servers for the internet work, here's why you can (usually) type in any 
URL on the planet and get to the same site (unless you're on some other 
NIC of course - but this is very rare). There's a "social context" 
surprisingly involved for DNS .. which I guess is what you consider to 
be the "realistics" that everyone overlooks when they just assign 
symbols to many different things; for instance, I bet you don't know 
what DNS is, but you know what a dictionary is, even though they refer 
to more or less the same functional things (uh, sort of). 

Anyway, it's context that matters when it comes to groundtruthing 
citations and traces in information ecologies, and not so much the 
symbolic manipulation thereof. It's the overall groundtruthed process, 
the instantiated exploding von Neumann probe phylum that will 
ultimately (not) grey goo you.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to