Armstrong Consulting
1200 Dale Avenue #100
Mountain View, CA 94040


Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 16:31:44 PDT


From:   Eric Armstrong
eric.armstrong@sun.com
Reply to: unrev-II@yahoogroups.com

To:     unrev-II@yahoogroups.com

Subject:   Semantic Community Web Portal


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...

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.

Sincerely,

Armstrong Consulting


Eric Armstrong
eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com