Questions for Feb 15

Bates

Rating: 2

1)  If I were to perform a study where I examined how various people perceive the concept of a chair, would my perception of the results fall under the Information 2 definition since I’m assigning a pattern to other people’s perception? Or would I need to develop an additional definition since I’m now making a pattern of the patterns generated by others?

2)  Isn’t the phrase “given meaning” redundant in Bates’ definition of knowledge? The definition is “Information given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding.” Bates explains that the word ‘Information’ here refers to her definition of “Information 2,” which is “some pattern of organization of matter and energy that has been given meaning by a living being.” So, an extended definition of knowledge could be made by substituting in the definition of information 2 where the word ‘information’ occurs in the definition of knowledge. This results in the following definition of knowledge: Some pattern of organization of matter and energy that has been given meaning by a living being given meaning and integrated with other contents of understanding. The second “given meaning” seems redundant. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Bates’ definition of knowledge to simply be “Information integrated with other contents of understanding?”

3)    Bates says that information does not exist on its own plane of existence but in the physical realm. Yet information is not matter or energy, it is the pattern of matter and/or energy. Given this, how does Bates feel about information-as-thing? Would she classify the pattern mentioned in her definition as an object or thing?

Buckland

Rating: 3

1)  Buckland says that words like ‘document’ and ‘documentation’ shouldn’t be limited to refer only to texts but should be much broader in scope. What is the advantage of broadening these terms in the fashion? If we were to have ‘document’ and ‘documentation’ be limited to texts, but add new vocabulary to refer to objects that perform similar functions but have different compositions (like artifacts, or antelopes) would the extra vocabulary be too cumbersome? Or would it allow us to easily qualify and categorize information-giving objects?

2)  Some of the documentalists hold that in order to be classified as a document an object must have a certain intent. It could be intended as evidence or intended as communication but the intent must be there. How do these documentalists determine intent? Is it the intent of the creator they have in mind? Or perhaps the intent of the user? If I create a clay bowl with no intent of communication or evidence – I just want a bowl – but 100 years later that bowl is in a museum, is that a document? How about if I paint my history on the bowl intending to communicate, but 100 years later nobody cares about my object and it is hidden away in a closet somewhere – is that a document?

3)  Buckland touches lightly on the implications the word ‘document’ has on digital objects. Which of the documentalists’ views would best translate to a digital environment? What adaptations, if any, would need to be made to their definition of a document in order for the transition to digital to function? 

Harper et al.

Rating: 3

1)  According to Harper et al. when Microsoft was contemplating WinFS as a possible new OS one of the reasons this didn’t happen was because legacy systems often had little or no metadata. The authors go on to suggest that one of the big ways forward is to rethink the role of metadata. What are some ways that implementation of this concept – rethinking the role of metadata – could avoid the same problem faced by WinFS?

2)  They end with phrases like “Much more needs to be done” and “Whatever future work does need undertaking – and there is [sic] obviously plenty of opportunities here.” Why don’t they elaborate on the direction future research should take? I know this isn’t a lit review, but to leave it by saying there is much to do but I can’t list any of it feels empty. So I guess my question is: What else is there to do? How best can we proceed with developing a new abstraction and a new grammar of action?

3)  They talk about the need for people to have the right to delete or own their digital works, or to manage copies being made – and I agree. But should the creator of a work be allowed to do anything they like with their work and not have any consequences to their rights? If I build a sculpture in downtown Austin, then later decide I want to “delete” my sculpture, should I be able to demand that anyone who snapped a photo (create a copy) of it erase the picture?  The creator of a work has the choice to post that work on social media, and by making that choice they are electing to give up certain rights tied to the work (most, if not all, social media sites include language for this in their terms of use). What motivation does Facebook have of saying “Sure, we’ll disseminate your content to the entire world for you for free! You go ahead and keep all rights tied to that content.”? Would a record label or book publisher make that kind of offer? No! So why should social media be different?