Permaculture Information Web

[Heide Hermary <heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca>]

Yeah, okay.
Repeating what said in an earlier post:  If we allow for plain text entry into all of these fields, then the real and only
technical difficulty will be the search.
Heide

Sean Maley wrote:

Sorry Heide,

There are too many listservs and I was rushing out the
door.  I intended the bottom part of my message to the
plantdb group, which is about plants (so far).  It
related to what you were saying (albeit the technical
breakdown). I failed to separate it's contents for my
convenience leaving work after a long day.

Entering brain dumps will be the reality of the system
and represents our technical challenges.  As we
discuss it further, the patterns will emerge.  It's
important not to get bogged down by _expression_.  At
the same time, computer technology seeks to break down
the ever changing world into discreet components and
their patterns.  If this can't be done at a detailed
level, a less accurate and grainy generalization is
mandated.  We want a tool to make the human job more
effective, not replace us (contrary to popular oppion,
they can't, haven't, and won't).

I find it important that species relationships require
a discussion beyond specifically discussing plants,
animals, cellular life, or even viruses.  In fact,
even nutrients are involved.  I am only asking for
lists of these components.  Then I am asking for
examples of these components; or completed lists when
it can be easily done.  You have provided a great deal
of this information, so please forgive a little tech
chat in the wrong place.

I have made suggestions on the technical side that
address the inevitable "data in the wrong boxes and
the system just needs to deal with it" realities.  I'm
not expecting data to come into this system and we
don't have any concerns about its validity or direct
usefulness.  My focus is only on what you require the
system to provide in order to be useful to you.


-Sean.

--- Heide Hermary <heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca>
wrote:

  

Sean Maley wrote:

    

Perhaps we can all brainstorm to list all
      

fundamental
    

types of species relating, list the pertinant
      

stages
    

of development, agree on a way to express
      

locale/time
    

or whatever metric is important.


-Sean.

Table wise I'm seeing three entities: plant,
      

relation,
    

and relation_type.  relation is a composite of two
dimensions of plant and a dimension of type and has
measures of maturity range, times of year, perhaps
calories/materials exchanged per unit, and more. 
      

Some
    

measures may need further mormalization, depending
      

on
    

what we come up with.
 

      

Sorry, you lost me there.
This isn't just about plants, it's about other
living beings (animals, 
microbes etc) and abiotic factors (soil, water,
temperature/ light/ air 
etc.) all of which are REQUIRED for healthy plants,
and any one of which 
can change the relationships between all of these -
resulting in changes 
to plant health.  It's really, really complicated.

When I teach organic horticulture I tell my students
it's a management 
decision making process, and management is as much
art as it is anything 
else.  In some ways I am at a loss in trying to
quantify information 
that we have so far used mostly on an intuitive
basis.  I can see how 
it's necessary.  I am really, really concerned that
we will be trying to 
classify too much.

I would like to see very general fields, like the
ones I outlined in one 
of my earlier posts.  Each field should have
descriptive guidelines to 
the person entering the info, like "this is the type
of info we want to 
see here".  Let them enter it the best way they can.
Plain text, 
spelling errors and all.  Anticipate that they will
not enter the info 
into the correct field (unless you want someone
proofreading 
everything), and then develop a search that will
pull out the info required.

Basically I see the entry fields as guidelines for
the person entering 
the info.  The search needs be much more powerful
than simply looking 
into ta field and finding what's there.  The search
itself needs to be 
intuitive.

Have no idea if this makes sense to you from a
technical perspective, or 
if it's even doable.

Cheers, Heide

_______________________________________________
piw mailing list
piw AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/piw

    

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
_______________________________________________
piw mailing list
piw AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/piw