I've added some comments in line to David's latest draft.

There is a lot I like there but my summary of things I would add are:

1. The 4-dimensional view of classifyng digital objects is interesting but ignoring one dimenstion and drawing this in 3-D could confuse people with the 3-dimensional view of digital object types/testbeds/scenarios we discussed in our meeting (where digital object type was considered just one axis). We could state that there are at least 6 dimensions to our model but I think this will just confuse people. Given most of the digital object classifications are binary (e.g., simple or not) I think a grid might explain this better and leave the multi-dimensional cube representation for the overall 3-D view.

2.Some of the classification of digital objects overlaps with classification of information objects. See my in-line comments but, for example, not all our images are intended to be rendered for human consumption.

3. We also need to cut our cloth according to our resources. I think, in essence, we have enough time only to: - Demonstrate the testbeds and classify what part of the 3-D space they can do well and what they can't. - Improve them (largey outside of Aparsen) - Demonstrate their improvement at a later date in Aparsen. I don't think this is made 100% clear in the current document.

-- RobertSharpe - 2011-07-21

Topic revision: r1 - 2012-03-27 - AshHunter
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback