+1 Stephen. The NSF discussion and the one you're trying to start are some of the more interesting things on this list in the last few months. Keep it up. --- Raj
On Jun 14, 2008, at 12:31 AM, stephen white wrote: > On 14/06/2008, at 3:43 AM, Mike Liebhold wrote: >> stephen white wrote >>> The challenge is ...to start considering some of the wider >>> questions ... >> >> Stephen given the general intellectual poverty you observe here, why >> don't enlighten us all with the wider questions you see, and >> research directions suggested by these big unsolved mysteries. > > I changed the subject line because you're framing the issue. This > isn't about me flaming, this is about what we can do to get past where > we're stuck in mash-ups. > > Look at the last 10 messages that freely criticise the NSF and how > they're a decade behind the times. The NSF group would not be at all > happy about those messages, and you are not happy about me making the > same observations about this group. That's an interesting point all by > itself. Why is it OK to criticise the NSF but not this group? > > To cut/paste selectively from some messages I wrote in private: The > durability aspect is definitely one that we need to talk about more. > The difficulty with the existing approaches is that it's at the crux > of two totally different issues: > > 1) The specific interface of the mash-up means that data cannot be > pulled out and used elsewhere. > > 2) A generalised approach to storing and retrieving data is needed, > but lacks the usability of the specific interface. > > The way out of this conundrum is to come up with something that is > generic enough for all data, while still allowing selection of > interesting data. The objective is to make people seriously think > along the lines of "how to make data universal despite specific > interfaces". So it seems there's a few options: > > 1) Anything that assists in mirroring reality, placing data in > virtual worlds (rather than a red dot on a map). > > 2) Anything that enables personal machines to capture, display and > handle its own data instead of always on the Net. > > 3) Anything along the lines of general purpose interfaces that > analyse data that it can handle, without limiting data it can't. > > Overall, stuff along the lines of specific data, specific interfaces, > generalised data, generalised durability. There are two conflicting > approaches at the moment and we keep falling into that valley of death > every time a mash-up is made. :) > > Some meta-solution is needed to resolve the head-on collusion. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
