[okfn-discuss] What Do We Mean by Componentization (for Knowledge)?

Thu May 3 10:27:19 BST 2007

thanks for the very detailed response Rufus :)

best,
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rufus Pollock" <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
To: "Prodromos Tsiavos" <p.tsiavos at lse.ac.uk>
Cc: "okfn-discuss" <okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] What Do We Mean by Componentization (for 
Knowledge)?

> Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
>> I think that Rufus's essay is particularly important for informing the 
>> way in which we design solutions to support OK artefacts. All I would 
>> like to add is that we may want to think of adding a fifth principle (or 
>> make a variation of the incremental principle) so that we focus more on 
>> the properties an OK artefact itself should concentrate:
>>
>> For instance, I would add that the Open Knowledge artefact should always 
>> be potentially unfinished or open.
>
> Interesting. This seems to be a distinct but related meaning to open 
> meaning 'open to alteration' (this would relate to the way in which some 
> people tend to put out finished pieces of work under a no-derivatives 
> license).
>
>> In the first version of the essay it is not clear to me, whether Rufus 
>> refers to 'open' under incremental in terms of open participation or 
>> 'open' in terms of an artefact that is susceptible to continuous 
>> improvements/ additions. I guess that the more 'completed' or
>
> Open here means open as in the open knowledge definition: 
> http://okd.okfn.org/. I was suggesting that knowledge development 
> generally would display these features but they are particularly relevant 
> (and work best) in relation to open knowledge development. To take the 
> code analogy: both open and closed source firms release packages but the 
> system delivers best when you are dealing with F/OSS but you get the full 
> advantages of decentralization and componentization (transaction costs are 
> zero).
>
>> 'self-standing' an artefact is, the less it is possible to be an OK 
>> artefact. I would even go to the extent of arguing that the way the
>
> I'm not sure I entirely understand you here. I think any piece of 
> knowledge (artefact/resource that is nonrival) can be open but you might 
> say that the less reusable the resource is the less it matters whether it 
> is open.
>
>> artefact is structured frames subsequent OK development interactions: for 
>> instance the way in which the artefact is atomized (it is not all 
>> artefacts that are atomized in the same way or even are susceptible to 
>> atomization) to a great extent influences the development routines.
>
> Absolutely that is something I wanted to go into greater detail about. I 
> see a definite spectrum with some areas of knowledge much more amenable to 
> this componentization compared to others. The classic examples where it is 
> hard to componentize is narrative prose. It is generally not possible to 
> take the start of one novel, the middle of another and the end of the 
> third, stick them together and get anything resembling a decent new novel. 
> In essence the problem is that narrative prose is highly coupled (to use a 
> bit of terminology from software architecture): when you change one thing 
> it generally has large knock-on effects elsewhere (anyone who has tried to 
> tweak and old essay for republication elsewhere will know this all too 
> well).
>
> Something similar is true about music to a lesser extent though of course 
> music can be incorporated into other types of works (such as films) and we 
> do have whole genres based on sampling -- though the gluing effort even 
> there is very substantial (perhaps this may be changing see the example 
> given in [1][]).
>
> Film provides an interesting example because here, though the finished 
> product may be highly coupled, there is significant scope for 
> componentization and atomization earlier on the production process. I 
> remember Adnan talking about the process being developed at deptford.tv 
> where one group of people would shoot footage, others would divide it up 
> into 10-30s segments which they would tag and annotate with metadata and 
> then others would come along and combine the segements into documentary 
> films.
>
> [1]: http://blog.okfn.org/2006/05/22/knowledge-packaging-for-content/
>
> Overall I guess I current see a spectrum that looks like:
>
>    Suitability for Applying the 4 principles (esp. componentization)
>
>  Low       Narrative Text (Novels, Essays etc)
>
>   |        Music
>   |
>   |        Film
>   |
>   V        Databases
>
> High       Code
>
>
>> To state it differently, is it enough to focus on the development process 
>> as if all artefacts are capable of being subjected to OK principles? Is 
>> the development process going to 'contaminate' the artefact and make it 
>> open or are there properties in an artefact that make it a bad candidate 
>> for OK development? and if there are such properties, are they essential 
>> or accidental?
>
> I think the question of the development process and whether the artefact 
> is open are to a large extent orthogonal -- though as I said above I think 
> this development process works best when the artefact is open. So I think 
> you can apply this process to artefacts that are not open without 
> 'contamination' though just as we are seeing growing tendencies towards 
> F/OSS I believe we will see a growing tendencies towards open 
> knowledge.[2]
>
> [2]: http://blog.okfn.org/2006/11/06/open-knowledge-drives-out-closed/
>
>> In overall, I would be very interested if someone disagrees or has a 
>> different take on the whole issue or even thinks that the point is so 
>> obvious that there is no need to discuss it at all.
>
> Absolutely, and thanks for writing such a detailed reply.
>
> ~rufus
>
> PS: I will be away and out of email contact for around the next 10 days 
> ... 

***** Email confidentiality notice *****
This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (the School) is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, under registered number 00070527, and having its registered office at 10th Floor, Tower One, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

The inclusion of this information does not of itself make this email a business document of the School and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the School accepts no liability for the content and opinions in any non-business emails.