looking for patterns vs. dreaming up patterns (was Re: ecommerce was Re: Principles of

On 12/21/06, Tantek Çelik <tantekcs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure who originally wrote:

I did.

> Others skip the collecting examples (data) step and
simply dream up patterns
> based on their intuition (or "expertise") -
perhaps that is what you mean by
> "allowing myself to look for patterns".

It was based on an IRC conversation,
<http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-10-28#T22
2748>,
<http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-11-15#T2
23713>.

> That non-scientific technique has been tried in many
(most) standards and
> results more often than not in bloated overly complex
(certainly not
> "micro") standards.  There are exceptions,
where an individual with
> exceptional discipline and near obsession with
simplicity makes something
> small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the
rule.
>
I'm not using this hypothesis to synthesize new standards. 
It's just
something I've been thinking about, and am looking for
evidence to
test it.  It is as basic a question as why some technology
seems to
work and some doesn't.

>  http://micr
oformats.org/wiki/why-examples

This is nice.

Thanks,
Ben

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 12/21/06 10:24 AM, "Benjamin West"
<bewestgmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/21/06, Tantek Çelik <tantekcs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not sure who originally wrote:
> 
> I did.
> 
>> Others skip the collecting examples (data) step and
simply dream up patterns
>> based on their intuition (or "expertise")
- perhaps that is what you mean by
>> "allowing myself to look for patterns".
> 
> It was based on an IRC conversation,
> <http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-10-28#T22
2748>,
> <http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-11-15#T2
23713>.

Ah, thanks for the context Ben.  The quote makes more sense
in that context,
but I still feel makes a statement that I wouldn't make.


>> That non-scientific technique has been tried in
many (most) standards and
>> results more often than not in bloated overly
complex (certainly not
>> "micro") standards.  There are
exceptions, where an individual with
>> exceptional discipline and near obsession with
simplicity makes something
>> small and elegant, but they are the exception, not
the rule.
>> 
> I'm not using this hypothesis to synthesize new
standards.

Agreed (from the IRC context).  The challenge is that others
certainly do,
and I didn't want them to misinterpret your words
accordingly.


> It's just
> something I've been thinking about, and am looking for
evidence to
> test it.  It is as basic a question as why some
technology seems to
> work and some doesn't.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I believe what I was
pointing out from
the IRC conversation is that you may wish to pursue more
formal study in
those fields (anthropology/ethnology/psychology in
particular) and refine
your hypotheses accordingly before spending time trying to
prove or disprove
it.  

You may find that similar hypotheses may already be
proven/disproven in the
formal fields and thus you won't have to duplicate the
effort. If not, you
will likely be able to at least refine your hypothesis to
build on existing
work.  

That's what I meant by being more scientific - working hard
to seek out and
build on existing work rather than simply pursuing your own
instincts and
experience.


>>  http://micr
oformats.org/wiki/why-examples
> 
> This is nice.

Thanks!

Tantek


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss