pcplantdb

[Stephanie Gerson <sgerson@stanfordalumni.org>]

Ok ok, so we're already on the same trip:

Johns wrote,
> If our model of plants and their interrelations is as much as possible 
> like our observations of how plants as living systems do whatever they 
> do, IMO it is less abstract and thus more life-giving, life-enhancing.
> The model itself might even teach some users more about plant 
> interactions themselves, besides just providing "info about plants."

Exactly.

Let the message match the medium.

yes.
*s

"Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net> wrote:

John Schinnerer wrote:

> Aloha,
> 
>> How do those bits of code (each possibly a microcosm of other bits of 
>> code
>> as with plant taxonomical data) communicate with other bits of code...
> 
> 
> Well, in terms of program code, that gets into nitty-gritty 
> implementation details, and is going to be more Chad's table than mine.
> 
> In somewhat plain English, a user "asks" them, and/or they "ask" each 
> other.  The "asking" by a user would be done via one of our eventual 
> various user interfaces, from a simple web form for queries to the 
> graph-based browsing interface option and so on.
> 
> If I "ask" the database as a whole something like "who here is a shade 
> loving nitrogen fixing woody shrub that grows OK in swampy ground," 
some 
> objects will essentially reply "I am!"  Their reply would include, or 
> offer links to, further information about themselves - like what their 
> names, climate preferences and so on are.
> 
> The "asking" by each other would be a consequence of a user query 
> propagating through the object model - if I "ask" a particular plant 
> entity something like "what are good companion plants for you," that 
may 
> trigger code in the plant object that may go look at ("ask") other 
plant 
> objects.  For example if it is shade-loving it may "look around" at 
> other plant objects to find ones that provide heavy shade (and have 
> compatible root zone, climate and precip and soil needs, etc.).

Then it seems that the DB ought to provide a long list or dictionary of
keywords and phrases that reflect in some way the key words and terms 
hard coded in the DB proper, as
in the coding associated with object attributes.
> 
>>> We are already a culture addicted to abstraction; I think plant 
>>> objects in an OO database are less an abstraction than relational 
>>> database tables full of bits of data about plants.
>>
>>
>> Can you explain this a little further?
> 
> For examples of our abstraction addiction, I submit phrases such as 
> "collateral damage" and "friendly fire," and news commentators 
referring 
> not to their fellow human beings but only to "consumers" or "voters" or 
> "protesters" or "terrorists" or "patriots" and so on.
> Our money is an abstraction; most of our food is far abstracted from 
its 
> source; most of our "education" is abstractions removed from actual 
> experience; etc. etc.  Our whole culture is very "head" (intellectual 
> abstraction) oriented.

I see your point.

> If our model of plants and their interrelations is as much as possible 
> like our observations of how plants as living systems do whatever they 
> do, IMO it is less abstract and thus more life-giving, life-enhancing.
> The model itself might even teach some users more about plant 
> interactions themselves, besides just providing "info about plants."

This is a great observation, John, a real gem. This makes perfect sense.
Use the scientific method and terminology. Get out the dictionaries and 
encyclopedias.
Maybe links to the Wikipedia might be useful. Anyway with object models 
designed this way, sans abstractions
and adhering to strict science, it might actualy be useful to annotate 
words and terms with links to
defintions (from simple to complex) for the benefit of users.

> I suspect it will also be easier to build and use, though of course I 
> have no proof until we bake a pudding and see what happens.

Butterscotch sounds nice.

LL
-- 
L.F.London
lfl@intrex.net
http://market-farming.com
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech
_______________________________________________
pcplantdb mailing list
pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/pcplantdb




+++++++++++++++
Stephanie Gerson
sgerson@stanfordalumni.org
(c) 415.871.5683


____________________________________________________________________