Tom Johnson
unread,Aug 23, 2010, 1:30:52 PM8/23/10Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to wed...@redfish.com, 632 Advisory, Blinman, Eric, DCA, Dale Kronkright, dwight...@aol.com, Verzuh, Valerie, DCA, Shelby Tisdale, Patinka, Doug, DCA, dor...@dorothybracey.com, Chris Feola, tim_m...@newmexico.com, John Kantner, Sacoman, Mariah L, John R. Sadd
Amigos:
Recently, Eric Blinman (NM state archaeologist) gave us a fine WedTech presentation related to his vision of what a rich, dynamic data base of our state's archaeology treasures could do for scholarship. But he also addressed the challenges in trying to merge-for-mining a variety of data bases that have been created during the last 100 or so years. These challenges include evolving -- and sometimes completely changing -- definitions of concepts and classifications. His concerns apply to all of the related sectors of museum study, I'm sure.
The link below suggests an interesting perspective on text, in this case Shakespeare's. But there is a lot of text stored in our existing data bases, not just archaeological but across the spectrum of our local arts and culture. The approach described in the link below may be out on the edge, but I wonder if it might trigger some ideas for application to our data. That is, if we could get at the text data and apply this type of analysis, might a better understanding of trends, commonalities and differences emerge?
http://flowingdata.com/2010/08/23/understanding-shakespeare-with-visualization/ This also is similar to a long-time favorite of mine, the ThemeRiver work done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
http://infoviz.pnl.gov/research_themeriver.stm
(Does anyone know of linguists and/or anthropological linguists
who have looked at the language used in discipline-specific data bases?)
-tom johnson