From: Dean Snyder (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 07:05:23 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote at 2:50 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
>> > One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
>> >normalize, sort - repeat as necessary.
>> Multiply that times the number of independent researchers and separate
>... and you get a thousand different requirements, each of which
>should be addressed with appropriate levels of programming tools.
... that are solved now by a single default process requiring no end user
>What gives you the slightest hope that *every* researcher's
>particular needs for searching and sorting can be baked into
>some *default* collation element weighting table? The whole point
>is to provide a mechanism for people to *tailor* it as they choose
>to meet *different* requirements.
No, that is not the whole point - there is also the point that 90% of our
work, which is done now by simple, default processes, would, all of a
sudden, require custom tailoring.
>By the way, Perl is God's gift to academic researchers.
Perl, a write-only language ;-)
>> Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
>> when what we do now works very well?
>Nobody plans to take away your rights and ability to continue
>doing what you now do, if it works very well for you. Please,
>sir, continue doing what you are doing with your current data. :-)
It's incredible to me that you and others keep repeating this mantra,
ignoring the fact (repeated for the nth time) that we will all be forced,
in our separate research projects, to deal with MULTIPLE, COMPETING encodings.
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
cell: 717 817-4897
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 07:06:06 CDT