Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!rhys From: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley) Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin Subject: Re: building an interstate (data) highway with no roadmaps Message-ID: <2013@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> Date: 19 Jun 91 01:54:53 GMT References: <9106171612.AA01441@mazatzal.merit.edu> Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au Reply-To: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au Lines: 55 In eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > Incidently, all the fancy software in the world with multiple >keys, multiple views, etc. won't address that need. What make the >Dewey system (or Library of Congress) useful is that once I have it in >my head, I know where books on say Cryptography are to be found, and I >can find related books that I didn't know about. A keyword probe will >miss closely related--but different--subjects. I agree that something like this is needed, but how is it going to be organised? There's a big difference between books and computer programs. If I go into a library and walk up to the shelf marked "Mathematical Logic" (marked in Dewey Decimal or whatever), then the books I find there will be about the various aspects of "Mathematical Logic" and just that. However, if I walk into a computer store and walk up to the shelf marked "Spreadsheets" I'll also find programs that double up as wordprocessors, databases, desktop publishers, comms programs, ... in addition to being a spreadsheet. So if the "Compy Decimal" system (or whatever) was used, we'd find such programs under lots of different numbers and sooner or later some librarian is going to forget to enter a program under all necessary headings, or a programmer is not going to tell the librarian all the headings and we are back to square one. Similarly, using identifiers for programs like "spreadsheet,database,wordprocessor,unix,xwindows:123.8" aren't going to be much better, and we'll get back to the keyword search problem eventually. Some central control would be needed (as with any library system) and that would be a good idea (and I agree with this), but with "creeping featurism" being the favourite passtime of upgrades these days, it's only going to get worse. When a book is published, further editions don't stray much from the original topic - but program users are always screaming for more features over and above what a program was initially intended for, meaning extra identifiers for every new version of a program. Distributed database technology is not the answer, just the means. Better information is the answer. Maybe it's time we retrained programmers to write programs to perform a single task, not control the world! :-) We'll come up with something eventually, but I don't think it will fit into the library/archive framework we are used to: there's so much more information in computing than humans are used to. It will have to be something new. Any ideas? Cheers, Rhys. +=====================+==================================+ || Rhys Weatherley | The University of Queensland, || || rhys@cs.uq.oz.au | Australia. G'day!! || || "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?" || +=====================+==================================+