[e2e] a means to an end

[David P. Reed]

I've studied Van's and there is no "location" embedded in his system.  
Unless of course you redefine the word location to mean something quite 
different than "geographic place".

Craig Partridge wrote:
> Hi Dave:
>
> So fine, call it datum or message -- the point is that some things that
> are desired have a single current instance.  That instance may get replicated
> eventually, or not, depending on context.  It may be that you can
> retrieve something similar from other, more widely available,
> sources/instances/etc.
>
> But you haven't responded to the point I made which is that when you
> want something that is rare, what I've discovered is all systems to
> date embed location.  If I'm understanding your note, you think I'm
> saying there's a reference copy/instance that we all must go back to
> ala the Grail (nope, that's not what I'm saying) or that I'm otherwise
> intentionally making things rare.  Instead I'm saying, when something is
> rare (1 instance/instantiation/whatever in the world -- and, by the way,
> I care about such cases as I used to be a medievalist and occasionally
> was probably the first person to see a document since it was written 700
> years ago), I've found that every information retrieval system (including
> Van's) embeds a location.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Craig
>
> In message <49340902.2050400 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>
>   
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Your presumption that information is a matter of copies, and that "sole 
>> copy" is a well-defined term, suggests a fundamental difference in our 
>> understanding of the word "information".
>>
>> Had you used the word "datum" or "message" (two human constructed 
>> concepts), I might agree.  But "information" is not a synonym for either 
>> term.  Both are *representations* or *instantiations* of information.
>>
>> A piece of paper with a number printed on it may be the "sole instance" 
>> of a printed piece of paper with that particular representation of 
>> information.   But if that number represents (say) "the total net value 
>> of my bank account on Dec. 1 2008", it is not at all the only "copy" of 
>> information.
>>
>> Information typically exists independent of form or representation.   It 
>> is a constructed, calculated, computed thing.  It doesn't exist 
>> independently, nor does it exist in sole form.
>>
>> Yes, I could agree with you that if information were forced to exist in 
>> "single copy" form, it would require some complex and amazing procedure 
>> to copy that piece of information into another place.  But, once copied, 
>> it would be smeared across half the universe.  (or alternatively you 
>> could decide, since "place" is really not a very easy-to-define term, 
>> that the information is still in one place, but the universe has now 
>> collapsed significantly, because all the places "containing" (whatever 
>> that means) the information would be "the same place").
>>
>> But independent of that: why is any information system designed to have 
>> data in a "sole copy"?   Van asks this question, and he is wise to ask 
>> this question.  Most computer systems work by having vast numbers of 
>> copies of data. We constantly see most information representations used 
>> in computation in the form of cached data.
>>
>> It seems to me that it is a pure fetish, perhaps conditioned by 
>> training, to posit that most information is represented by single 
>> copies.  That way lies "brittle" failure-prone engineering.
>>
>> Let a thousand representations bloom.  Many of them will be copies of a 
>> datum.  Others will be computable recovery algorithms - some of which 
>> invent an abstraction called "location".   But even that abstraction 
>> called location is not a "place" in the sense of a 4 dimensional spatial 
>> metric based coordinate system.   I address a piece of paper by its 
>> title, not its current location in the file folder on someone's desk.
>>
>>
>> Craig Partridge wrote:
>>     
>>>> Our dear friend, Van Jacobsen, has decided that layering "where" under 
>>>> "what" with regard to data is neither necessary, nor a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> I agree: confusing the container with the information it happens to hold 
>>>> is a layer violation.  Information is not bound to place, nor is there a 
>>>> primary instance.  Information is place-free, and perhaps the idea that 
>>>> there must be a "place" where it "is" is an idea whose time should pass, 
>>>> and the purveyors of that idea as a holy writ (the OSI layering) retired 
>>>> to play golf.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Hi Dave:
>>>
>>> Much as I'd like to believe this particular theory (as it is nice, clean
>>> and pretty), practical considerations suggest we're not there.
>>>
>>> I've talked with some of the folks working on information and seeking
>>> to make information place-free, and the answer, so far, that I've gotten
>>> is that you get part-way there.  If the information is popular or
>>> "nearby" then there are mechanisms that can be viewed as place-free (and
>>> a good thing -- it means that the more popular a piece of information is,
>>> the easier to get easily and perhaps from somewhere locally).
>>>
>>> But if you ask about retrieving an uncommon piece of information then
>>> you discover "location" crawls out from under the covers.  That is,
>>> if you ask the question "where do I find the sole copy of item X", you
>>> learn that somewhere hidden in the name of X is a location -- perhaps
>>> of X or perhaps of a rendezvous server that knows where X is -- but
>>> there's the location of something buried in there.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>