Permaculture Information Web

[Stephanie Gerson <sgerson AT stanfordalumni.org>]

Amen.

Thank you Heide, for your insightful and provocative posts!  (I suggest we all
re-read her words at the bottom of this email.)  A few things:

-I agree that it would be an overwhelming task to develop an entirely new (and
more function-oriented) taxonomy.  However, in the process of developing this
(dynamic) database, we may observe such a taxonomy emerge (and co-evolve)
organically…

-How can we define relationships as +/-, synergistic/antagonistic – when
this seems to change with level of magnification?  A relationship appears
antagonistic when observing one particular organism, and appears synergistic
when observing the ecological context (Heide’s butterfly example as a case
in point).  Will we therefore have different levels of 'zoom' – allowing
users to zoom into (organism-scale) or out of (ecosystem-scale) ecological
relationships?

-I’d like to reiterate Heide’s words, “I've thought about this a lot and
finally decided not to worry about categories, but to describe the
relationships.  Too much is lost by trying to fit organisms and dynamic
relationships into tight little boxes.  That's not how life works.  And that's
why we don't have much easily accessible information on exactly these things. 
Which is the reason for developing this database in the first place.  So let's
not condemn it to superficiality right from the start.”  Yes, exactly.  This
database will inspire users to think *systemically* - in terms of ecological
relationships versus discrete (no such thing) components.  As I mention in
grant proposals, PIW is a manifestation of the paradigm shift from
reductionism to holism, which will be reflected in its structure.

-However, as Rich and Sean point out, computers Love categories and discrete
components.  I wonder, is this the way computers are intrinsically, or is this
the way we’ve trained them to be?  Would it be possible to develop a
computer language/database structure conducive to a more analog/continuous way
of organizing information?  Would it be possible to develop computers that
Love webs and relationships instead?

-And thanks Matthew, for your suggestion.   Yes, we have discussed
testimonials and rating systems.  But, I do prefer your description of it as a
“mass repository for folk wisdom” better.

Thanks again to everyone for such stimulating discussion.

peace
*Stephanie

p.s.  Others might be interested in checking out Heide's database - Heide,
would you be willing to show it to others on this list?

------ Original Message ------
Received: 07:21 AM PST, 02/11/2005
From: Heide Hermary <heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca>
To: Permaculture Information Web <piw AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [piw] Q2: what criteria do we want to record for plants.

Richard, I will e-mail you separately to get in touch so you can get 
access to our database.

Other comments within your text below:

Richard Morris wrote:

> A solution I've though of to the Guild question is to treat a guild
> as a seperate object or page in the database.
>
> You can then have a relationship between a plant and the guild. And 
> have some text in the Guild page describing the relationship in more 
> depth.
>
> One example of this is the "White Oak Guild" which I gleaned from Toby 
> Hemingways work.
>
http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/pcplantdb/showthing.php?BOTNAME=White+Oak%2FHazelnut+community

>
>
> Currently we are lacking on much data about guilds, this is the only 
> example I've been able to find.

Actually, the way I see it this is exactly what the diverse data entered 
into the database will CREATE upon a SEARCH.  Some of the information 
you refer to as "guild" is available as "ecosystem" information: such as 
the Garry Oak Ecosystem, the Cedar-Maple Ecosystem (where I live), 
etc.etc.  But this only refers to native habitat, not to food plants 
(except the wild ancestors of our food plants, but I doubt many of our 
cultivated varieties would survice in that habitat any more). Also, 
plants usually belong to many different ecosystems, as there is seldom 
an abrupt change in nature but a gradual interphase.

>
>> I've thought about this a lot and finally decided not to worry about 
>> categories, but to describe the relationships.  Too much is lost by 
>> trying to fit organisms and dynamic relationships into tight little 
>> boxes.  That's not how life works.  And that's why we don't have much 
>> easily accessible information on exactly these things.  Which is the 
>> reason for developing this database in the first place.  So let's not 
>> condemn it to superficiality right from the start.
>
>
> Agreed. This is a good case for keeping the DB loosly structured
> so we can allow for a lot of flexability.
>
> Categories do have their uses. Computers love them! It can make for 
> easier searching, i.e. you can search for a particular category.
> There is a problem with the same thing being described in two
> different ways, using two different labels.
>
>> Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea what the techies are talking 
>> about. PLEASE allow for plain text entry into these fields!! 
>
>
> What you can have is a list of exsisting relationships, say a drop 
> down list. But also allow for a new type of relationship to be added 
> in a text field.

I think you are looking too narrow.  You (we) are trying to portray  
very complex  relationships, AND we don't even know what they are.  So 
boxing them in at this point is trying to fit nature into our limited 
perception of how we thinks she works. That's the BIG problem with 
conventional databases, which limits their usefulness and makes them 
obsolete so quickly.

We want to invite all the concerned people out there to contribute their 
knowledge about these plants and ecosystems, and many years from now, 
when we do a search for a particular plant,  we will find a wealth of 
information that allows us to make ecologically sound decisions in our 
area, and for our application.

I think you need look totally beyond the idea of a normal database.  
Maybe the place to start from is the search. I don't know what the 
current state of the technology is, but I will e-mail you separately 
about that too.

Cheers, Heide


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




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


____________________________________________________________________