pcplantdb

[Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org>]

Lawrence F. London, Jr. writes:
 > Chad Knepp wrote:
 > 
 > > The thing about references is that most of our authorship from this
 > > point forth will not be accompanied references other than an allusion
 > > to personal experience.  I also do not find a reference to a book I do
 > > not own to be particularly helpful in anyway.  Online references could
 > 
 > Actuall is very helpful for those who will accesss those resources
 > but reliable, somewhat grass roots peer reviewed anecdotal evidence
 > is excellent and almost beyond value.

Yeah, I have a lot more trust in an article signed 'Toby Hemenway' or
'B. Mollison' than a reference to "The Gargantuan Encyclopedia of
Plants".  We will only have dead tree references for the core PFAF
dataset anyway.

 > > be helpful in the way you suggest, but I think that peer reputation
 > > will be the most widely used mechanism of ensuring authority.  I'm ok
 > > including references, but I suspect they will be unused.  What do
 > > other folks think?
 > 
 > They will be used and we need a massive array of bibliographic
 > resources, actually thses should be included in records for every
 > object in the database if possible; at least add a field for this.
 > 
 > > Since it seems like a hot topic, I have some questions about
 > > relationships as well.  Are there a finite number of
 > 
 > I would think you would have loose and tight relationships
 > 
 > In order of tight ----> loose
 > 1) relationships within specific guilds
 > 2) selationships between guilds
 > 3) specific guild to pc system components, i.e. swale, food garden,
 > xeriscape (preferred environment for growth)
 > 
 > > relationships?... for example would 1000 different kinds of
 > > relationships between elements adequately describe things... 100, 500,
 > > 2000? 
 > 
 > Does this have to be defined? If so maybe set a very high limit
 > (100000?) if the software will permit that - useful when exploring
 > microcosms as in relationships that exist within and without the
 > soil environment (this might be important when learning about
 > legume us in a guild or confifer growth in a forest ecosystem) also
 > cultural details of wild plants in the wild or naturalized, kudzu,
 > aquatic plants (azolla for instance), etc.
 >
 > > Would these relationships be one word, several words, a
 > 
 > I thought these relationships would be an unlimited amount of
 > information containing their own external links that would exist
 > between "objects" (chickweed & poultry)

As in my reply to Rich A. I was wanting to make it more searchable.  I
think both are possible.

 > > paragraph, or what?  Also if their are a finite number of
 > > Relationsips is a relationship in our system adequately expressed
 > > as "(one or more elements) has/have 'Relationship' with (one or
 > > more elements)"?
 >
 > sounds like you are talking about a guild when you describe
 > relationship this way.

Well I would actually see a guild as a set of these relationships. 

 > These are great topics for discussion in our permacultureinfo
 > public list; maybe it is time to announce it and add subscribers.
 > Stephanie: do you want to write the announcement - I will supply
 > you with a few paragraphs of info on accessing the forum.

Is it open to subscription yet?

 > Why does large blocks of monocropped volunteer wild mustard/turnip
 > greens & natural hybrids exhibit massibe insect damage when
 > scattered individual volunteer plants do not?

Some of the best looking veggies here at Dancing Rabbit this summer
are various guerilla gardening patches about like a gourd on the
common house wood pile and a patch of sweet corn planted through old
hay out by the soccer field.

-- 
Chad Knepp
python -c 'import base64;print base64.decodestring("cHlnQGdhbGF0ZWEub3Jn")'