pcplantdb

[Bear K <bear@ursine-design.com>]

Think we can set up a CVS server and edit/append to Richard's DTD at 
some point?

> The concept of being able to attach a comment to every/any 'object' is
> a concept I am quite into.  Defining object granularity as a sentence
> is a little smaller than I had in mind.  I was thinking more along the
> lines of a comment being the smallest object, but this could be
> multiple paragraphs.
Yeah, thats fine. Seems like current text blobs are 1-4 sentences per 
reference...
Also, can we assume all text prior to a reference [#] is from that 
source?

> While I agree that knowing the source of information is important, I
> personally have more faith in the reports of personal experience by
> Hemenway, Holmgren, Pittman, London, etc. than a reference to a book.
> These folks already have reputations.  I also suspect that from this
> point on most/all of the information we will accumulate will not be
> researched from books like Ken Fern did with PFAF.  I've said all this
> before...
I didn't mean to imply that books are more valid. Just that the current 
DB refers to books. Thus the "comments" should allow a source property, 
which might be a book, or the person entering it themselves.

From john s:
> Hmmm, relation characteristics like the "root zone (in)compatible" 
> ones and similar could be elaborated by linking to relevant 
> plants...so, for a given plant, select a relevant word/phrase, then 
> possibly elaborate in comment and/or link to relevant other plants 
> that "finish the phrase."
>
> So something with a shallow root zone would have an attribute 'root 
> zone compatible with' and linkages to plants with deep root zones 
> (ideally ones that also had other relevant relations...this is just an 
> off-the-cuff example, remember? ;-)

This brings up 2 things:
First, it seems like having to manually create linkages between plants 
with short and deep root zones is overly laborious. I'd prefer to see a 
query used on these, something that could look at species 1, find the 
root zone, then find plants with zones deeper/etc then the species. 
Having to manually create links is going to mean making a link that 
probably has more judgements about the relationship then just 
rhizosphere. I'd prefer to see queries narrow the options down with 
more terms from as wide a selection as possible.

On the other hand, I'd love for there to be a way for authorship of 
"case study" relationship networks that are in the real world. Tagging 
a connection with a UID for a network, and querying for that UID to get 
the nodes. Something that both adds data to the whole DB, while also 
being able to be viewed as a real network. The Apple Guild, etc. If for 
example the DB expands beyond plants at some point, the networks from 
ZERI projects could be added, or the Soil Food Webs from E. Ingram 
could get added in, or of course new guild combos from the PC 
community. These ARE relationships that have been discovered and 
applied by real people.

Then at some point in the future, someone could build the network in a 
TG client, export it as RDF, and publish it on their blog, commenting 
on how it's worked and how they found it. They ping PIW a la trackback, 
and PIW notes and adds the relationships to the DB.

OK, hand wants to stop typing.

Cheers,
Bear