Alex Shapiro wrote:
> Have you
>
>> > checked
>> > out this paper by the
>> > way? http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/VSW01.pdf What to you
>> think?
>
The examples in this paper appear to me to reinforce the principles I
posited
in a post quite a while back. Graphics work when there is
* a small set of
* fixed data types
* small sets of relationships
That allows one icon to be associated with each type. The graph can then
show
patterns or locations of the items. Graphs run into problems in one of
three ways:
1) When the number of types grows large, there are too many icons to
keep track
of, and no meaningful patterns emerge.
2) When the number of relationships grows large, the intersecting
lines in any
graphic representation turns the picture into a confusion.
3) When the number of entries grows large, items are far removed from
each
other, and the other end of any given relationship is rarely
visible in a given
display area.
I note that the examples used in this paper have exactly two data types:
a location
at the top level of the hierarchy, and something else (presumably a
"job" type) at
the second level of the hierarchy. I note that no information about the
job is
contained in the graph. So the "information content" only goes one
level deep.
At the top level, the only information is the name of the location.
Presumably, there
is a link to other information that would help to explain why a given
location is good
or bad for jobs, but the graph itself contains little or no pertinent
information on the
subject.
At the second level of the hierarchy, the *only* information is the
number of jobs.
(Assuming that I am correctly interpreting the intent of the diagrams.)
The
individual bubbles would be useless for keeping track of jobs. They are
already
getting small and hard and select. And it would take different types of
icons to
present any useful information.
Given these limitations, I don't see how graphing techologies apply at
all to
collaborative design/discussion tools or a knowledge base, given the
huge
volume of information such a tool needs to manage, the vast array of
information types, and the exponentially exploding number of
interconnects.
Perhaps TheBrain has something that could provoke a change of mind. I
can't say I've seen it (or recall what I saw, if I did). But as a simple
example,
how would any of the information contained in this message be captured
in
a graph? Were it done, in what way would such a graph be of use to
anyone?
I simply do not see graphing technology as useful in any substantive way
in a knowledge-engineering context. It's GREAT for visualizing small
systems, which makes it a wonderful tool for teaching. It gives people a
mental model of the systems. But in actual use? I'm still inclined to
pass,
I'm afraid.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Sep 14 2001 - 17:14:34 PDT