[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.42,0:00:02.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Welcome to digital dialogues.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:06.01,0:00:11.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We have a speaker today who I think\Nhas one of the most interesting minds
Dialogue: 0,0:00:12.54,0:00:16.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the field, and it will be a treat\Nto hear what Allan has to say
Dialogue: 0,0:00:16.47,0:00:18.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and take it on board,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.48,0:00:24.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and our associate director Trevor Muñoz\Nwill be introducing Allan.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.51,0:00:29.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What I'd like to do is to have you all\Nintroduce yourselves to begin.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.75,0:00:34.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Your name and where you're from,\Nand after you do that,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.60,0:00:36.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'll ask Trevor to come up.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.40,0:00:38.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So Stephanie, do you want to start?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.94,0:00:43.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience members introduce themselves)
Dialogue: 0,0:04:07.40,0:04:10.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm gonna turn it over to Trevor now\Nwho will introduce Allan
Dialogue: 0,0:04:10.39,0:04:12.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and then we'll get on with the show.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:15.56,0:04:17.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For those of you who came in afterwards,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:17.42,0:04:18.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My name's Trevor Muñoz.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.75,0:04:20.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm an associate director here.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.21,0:04:27.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's my great pleasure to introduce\Nour Digital Dialogue speaker today.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.16,0:04:30.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Allan Renear is interim dean and professor
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.55,0:04:33.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the Graduate School of Library\Nand Information Science
Dialogue: 0,0:04:33.16,0:04:35.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the University of Illinois,\NUrbana-Champaign.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.76,0:04:41.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Allan also has a long and storied career\Nin the digital humanities.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:41.86,0:04:43.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Before he went to GSLIS,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.78,0:04:47.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he was the director of s scholarly\Ntechnology group at Brown University
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.37,0:04:51.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where he did some groundbreaking\Ndigital humanities research.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.67,0:04:55.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He wrote some of the, I would say,\Nseminal papers of digital humanities
Dialogue: 0,0:04:55.24,0:04:58.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,around text encoding\Nand our ideas about documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:59.02,0:05:01.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I know he's updated some\Nof the ideas about documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.86,0:05:04.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think we'll hear a little\Nabout this today.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.24,0:05:08.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,After leading a digital humanities group\Nat Brown for many years,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.23,0:05:12.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he went to the Graduate School of Library\Nand Information Science of Illinois
Dialogue: 0,0:05:13.17,0:05:17.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and while he's been there he's done\Na long string of interesting work
Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.16,0:05:22.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,around data curation,\Nfoundational concepts
Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.36,0:05:24.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in our understanding\Nof digital systems,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.54,0:05:27.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,digital objects, and this\Nrecent work has taken him
Dialogue: 0,0:05:27.74,0:05:33.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from digital humanities into considering\Nobjects such as scientific data sets,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:33.74,0:05:36.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the systems we use\Nto manage and curate them.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:36.63,0:05:40.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,As Neil mentioned, Allan has\None of the most interesting minds
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.61,0:05:45.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in digital humanities, and I think we'll\Nall benefit from his incisive perspective
Dialogue: 0,0:05:45.02,0:05:46.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on things that we thought we knew.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.96,0:05:50.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So at this point I'll turn it over\Nto Allan to talk about
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.24,0:05:53.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an Eliminativist Ontology\Nof the digital world,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.46,0:05:55.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and what it means for data curation.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:55.35,0:05:57.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, welcome Allan.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:57.13,0:05:58.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thank you.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.77,0:06:02.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thank you for inviting me.\NThank you.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:02.19,0:06:08.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's great to be here with my old friends\Nand my new friends.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:08.76,0:06:13.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And eliminativist,\Nit's a hard word to pronounce,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:13.05,0:06:17.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ontology of the digital world\Nand what it means for data curation.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.80,0:06:22.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You know, you always get these titles\Nwell in advance of the actual talk
Dialogue: 0,0:06:22.10,0:06:24.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you're sure you're going\Nto accomplish so much
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.69,0:06:27.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by the time the talk rolls around.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:27.04,0:06:30.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Never quite do, so I'm not\Ngoing to [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.12,0:06:32.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an Ontology of the digital world,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.39,0:06:35.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but I will say enough to suggest
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.56,0:06:40.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how a particular kind\Nof Ontology might develop.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.38,0:06:42.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So this is more like {\i1}towards{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.47,0:06:47.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an eliminativist ontology\Nof the digital world.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:47.76,0:06:56.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It will be a kind of unapologetic,\Nreflective, almost philosophical
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.35,0:07:02.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meditation on the conceptual foundations\Nof information science.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.64,0:07:09.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,As Trevor indicated I was in the workplace\Nin digital humanities for about 20 years.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.73,0:07:15.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the last few years I've enjoyed\Nindulging my pension
Dialogue: 0,0:07:15.96,0:07:21.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for the philosophy of the things\NI've been doing for so long.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.59,0:07:28.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My work such as it is now is so social,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.15,0:07:32.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I cannot figure out what's mine\Nand what's other people's,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.07,0:07:35.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I've practically given up.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:35.04,0:07:40.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most of what I'm presenting here\Nhas been collaboratively developed
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.31,0:07:45.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by these people, and probably some others
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.89,0:07:48.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there are quite a number\Nof papers out there
Dialogue: 0,0:07:48.03,0:07:51.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in this vein if you want to read more.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.60,0:07:57.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I make the slides and I also\Nam totally responsible,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:57.11,0:07:59.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not only for the mistakes and implicities,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:59.94,0:08:02.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but for anything that seems\Njust a little over the top,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.81,0:08:04.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's probably mine.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.60,0:08:09.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not sure that my colleagues\Nwould agree with everything that I say,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:09.50,0:08:12.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but that's the problem\Nwhen you work collaboratively.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.52,0:08:15.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Deeply collaboratively.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.60,0:08:20.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Your really sign on for most\Nof what's being asserted,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.86,0:08:24.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not necessarily for all of it.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:24.01,0:08:28.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I also should give credit.\NA lot of the projects that you'll see here
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.86,0:08:34.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are funded by NSF and also IMLS located
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.65,0:08:39.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the Center for Informatics Research\Nand Sciences Scholarship at GSLIS,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:39.21,0:08:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,directed by Carole Palmer.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:44.28,0:08:46.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Where do I point this?\NI feel like a geezer.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.46,0:08:49.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,At the screen? There we go.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.26,0:08:59.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think it's fair to say\NI'm going to be doing ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.36,0:09:05.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't mean a lot by the word ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:05.29,0:09:08.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I probably could say\Nconceptual modeling,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:08.09,0:09:09.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that would work just as well,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.75,0:09:13.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so don't read too much\Ninto the word ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.57,0:09:17.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To make sure that you don't read\Ntoo much into the word ontology,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.93,0:09:21.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm going to talk a little bit\Nabout something I'm not going to do,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.43,0:09:27.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that is Meta-Ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:27.18,0:09:31.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You may wonder, "why bother?",\Nbut you'll see in a minute.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.63,0:09:35.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Meta-Ontology is,\Nas you can probably guess,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.16,0:09:42.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about ontology: assertions, analysis,\Narguments, claims, etc. about ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.15,0:09:53.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A claim in meta-ontology might be,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.57,0:09:58.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"when it comes to ontology,\Nthere's no fact of the matter."
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.90,0:10:04.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's no theory independent,\Nsociety independent fact of the matter.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.51,0:10:09.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Ontologies are constructed\Nby people, by theories,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:09.16,0:10:11.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by shared interests, and so on.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:11.87,0:10:18.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's a meta-ontological claim.\NIt's about the nature of ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.18,0:10:25.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's claiming that it's\Nin some broad sense relative.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.65,0:10:30.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A relativist claim about ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:30.40,0:10:34.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Another common\Nmeta-ontological claim,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:34.09,0:10:41.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well, actually, every meta-ontological\Nclaim has, of course,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.46,0:10:47.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a companion claim that denies it,\Nso here are two meta-ontological claims.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.05,0:10:54.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One, there's a sharp distinction\Nbetween science and ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:56.22,0:11:01.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Two: there's no sharp distinction\Nbetween science and ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.15,0:11:04.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's a meta-ontological claim.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:06.75,0:11:11.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So Willard Van Orman Quine,\Nprobably the leading pholosopher
Dialogue: 0,0:11:11.92,0:11:13.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the second half of the 20th Century,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:13.91,0:11:17.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was a relativist. He did not believe\Nthere is any fact of the matter
Dialogue: 0,0:11:17.95,0:11:19.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with respect to ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:20.82,0:11:25.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He also did not think there was\Na sharp line between science and ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:26.74,0:11:31.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He was a relativist\Nabout everything, so [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.54,0:11:33.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he was a relativist about ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:34.03,0:11:37.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,These are examples of issues with which\NI am not going to concern myself.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.56,0:11:55.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the reason I'm not going\Nto concern myself with these issues
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.81,0:11:57.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is that they're very distracting.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.73,0:12:01.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No one ever changes their mind.\NI no longer think that they're much fun.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.21,0:12:06.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I also don't think\Nthat they are very important.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:10.01,0:12:13.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For the most part, no matter\Nwhat your meta-ontological views,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:13.88,0:12:17.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you [inaudible] ontology the same way.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:18.86,0:12:24.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Relativists and absolutist do ontology\Nmore or less the same way.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.09,0:12:26.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those who believe there is\Na sharp dividing line
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.97,0:12:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between ontology and science\Nand those who don't,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:29.23,0:12:32.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more or less do ontology the same way.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.41,0:12:38.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The actual practice of ontology,\Napart from meta-ontology,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.08,0:12:46.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I find to be engaging and practical,\Nuseful, an important thing to do.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.82,0:12:49.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So how is ontology done, typically?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:50.54,0:12:57.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,By people with different,\N{\i1}or no{\i0} meta-ontological views.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:58.19,0:13:03.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For the most part we start\Nwith our beliefs about the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:04.51,0:13:07.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The beliefs we actually have.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:08.32,0:13:11.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,These could be common sense,\Nordinary beliefs
Dialogue: 0,0:13:11.06,0:13:15.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or they could be scientific beliefs.\NThey could be mathematical beliefs.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.36,0:13:20.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We start with those beliefs\Nand we ask ourselves,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:20.42,0:13:27.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"what must there be in the world\Nif these things that I believe are true?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.92,0:13:35.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"What kinds of things must there be\Nin the world if my beliefs are true?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.94,0:13:41.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What kinds of relationships\Ndo they have to one another?"
Dialogue: 0,0:13:43.10,0:13:46.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and, when you make a list of the things
Dialogue: 0,0:13:46.31,0:13:48.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that apparently you think\Nthat there are in the world,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.75,0:13:53.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sometimes that list looks too long.\NIt looks like you have some duplicates.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:53.09,0:13:55.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Perhaps you've been misled by language,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:55.72,0:14:00.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you have two different words\Nfor the same thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:00.04,0:14:02.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Perhaps you realized\Nthat some kind of thing
Dialogue: 0,0:14:02.50,0:14:07.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was composed of other things.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:07.07,0:14:11.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Perhaps you also discover\Nyou don't have enough things on the list,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:11.53,0:14:14.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and maybe you were confused by synonyms.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.60,0:14:21.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I did start by saying you think about\Nyour beliefs, your concepts, beliefs,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:21.41,0:14:24.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and go on from there\Nbut typically it's hard to do that
Dialogue: 0,0:14:24.69,0:14:27.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,without looking carefully\Nat the sentences
Dialogue: 0,0:14:27.56,0:14:34.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that express our beliefs, and that's\Nwhere the synonyms and ambiguity come in.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:37.01,0:14:39.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we do ontology, most of the time
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.99,0:14:45.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're thinking about what we believe,\Nbut the device that assists us
Dialogue: 0,0:14:45.92,0:14:51.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in examining what we believe\Nare the sentences that we use
Dialogue: 0,0:14:51.83,0:14:54.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to express our belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:54.61,0:15:01.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, starting from that point, we go on\Nto try to create a picture of the world
Dialogue: 0,0:15:01.44,0:15:05.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is consistent\Nand simple and accurate
Dialogue: 0,0:15:05.81,0:15:11.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and reflects the world\Nthat must be out there
Dialogue: 0,0:15:11.98,0:15:17.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if the beliefs that we have\Nare in fact true.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:17.74,0:15:23.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And from what I can see, it doesn't matter\Nwhat your meta-ontology is.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.50,0:15:25.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's how you do ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:25.13,0:15:28.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's how a lot of ontology is done.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:28.84,0:15:33.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've decided that if I've ever done\Nmeta-ontology in the past,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.54,0:15:35.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not going to be doing it anymore.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:35.57,0:15:37.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm sticking to ontology.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:42.68,0:15:46.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those were preliminaries, and maybe\Nthis one is a little bit as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.67,0:15:54.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The theme of this presentation\Nis Eliminativism,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.90,0:16:01.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the basic idea here\Nis that with respect
Dialogue: 0,0:16:01.83,0:16:04.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to our beliefs about the world,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:04.30,0:16:08.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,respect to our common sense\Nconceptual scheme,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.31,0:16:13.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some of the things\Nwe think exist, don't.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:15.83,0:16:22.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, you may have encountered\Nthis perspective in the past.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:22.62,0:16:24.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One place where it's\Nparticularly prominent,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:24.50,0:16:27.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where it's been called Eliminativism
Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.42,0:16:32.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is in cognitive science,\Nwhere in the last 20 to 30 years
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.01,0:16:38.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a number of cognitive scientists\Nhave argued that our folk psychology
Dialogue: 0,0:16:39.56,0:16:46.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of desire, belief, action,\Nis profoundly misleading.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.00,0:16:53.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That in fact, there really are no beliefs,\Ndesires, intentions [inaudible].
Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.60,0:17:06.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Instead, there are other things\Nthat are more scientifically respectable,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:07.67,0:17:12.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are more explanatory,\Nthat will give a better account
Dialogue: 0,0:17:12.96,0:17:16.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the same phenomena in the world
Dialogue: 0,0:17:16.48,0:17:23.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that we've been using belief,\Ndesire, intention to describe.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:26.51,0:17:29.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those cognitive scientists\Nwere characterized
Dialogue: 0,0:17:29.35,0:17:33.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as eliminating folk beliefs,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:34.42,0:17:38.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the word elimination, and I think\Nit was really in cognitive science
Dialogue: 0,0:17:38.20,0:17:41.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that it became particularly prominent,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.92,0:17:46.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the reason elimination\Nwas important as a concept
Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.92,0:17:49.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the cognitive scientists\Ndoing this elimination
Dialogue: 0,0:17:49.53,0:17:54.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is that it contrasted with what\Nbehaviorists were doing
Dialogue: 0,0:17:54.49,0:17:59.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when they reduced beliefs to behavior.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:00.04,0:18:04.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So instead of reducing beliefs\Nto dispositions to behave,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:04.53,0:18:11.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the more advanced cognitive scientists\Ninstead wanted to give
Dialogue: 0,0:18:12.38,0:18:18.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an alternative account\Nof folk psychological notions.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:18.88,0:18:20.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,An alternative account.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:21.05,0:18:28.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One that discarded them,\Nin a sense, completely,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:30.67,0:18:33.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unlike behaviorists, who were saying,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:33.38,0:18:38.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I'll tell you what belief really is:\Nit's a disposition to behave,"
Dialogue: 0,0:18:39.58,0:18:44.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the cognitive scientists are alluding to,\Nmaybe idealizing a bit or something,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:46.69,0:18:49.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were saying, "I'm not going to tell you
Dialogue: 0,0:18:49.01,0:18:52.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what belief really is,\Nbecause there are none."
Dialogue: 0,0:18:52.56,0:18:55.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You need to let it go\Nand adopt these other notions,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:56.31,0:18:58.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which will find much more service.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:00.91,0:19:05.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most of my intellectual life\NI have detested Eliminativists.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:06.31,0:19:11.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I now find myself\Non the edge of becoming one.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:15.16,0:19:20.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In information science,\Nwhen we develop models
Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.86,0:19:27.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that presumably describe precisely\Nsome process, for instance, or some domain
Dialogue: 0,0:19:33.79,0:19:40.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we use a language that is intended\Nto be understood literally,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:41.70,0:19:47.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we discover problems that are such
Dialogue: 0,0:19:47.32,0:19:53.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that elimination of an entity,\Nof an entity type,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:53.08,0:19:58.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,becomes a tempting solution.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:58.87,0:20:05.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is, in my experience, particularly\Nthe case where our models or ontologies
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.14,0:20:13.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are representing processes\Nthat involve change and identity.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.100,0:20:20.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Eliminativist strategies become\Nvery tempting, at least to me.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:21.16,0:20:25.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm now going to explore some elimination
Dialogue: 0,0:20:27.51,0:20:31.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it's hard to let these things go.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:31.96,0:20:34.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You may not want to.\NHence, the courage.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:34.98,0:20:39.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,As I talk now, please feel free\Nto interject at any point,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:39.80,0:20:42.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,now that we're sort of getting\Nto the interesting part.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:42.98,0:20:47.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not sure exactly\Nhow long this will take,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.55,0:20:49.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and how much time\Nthere'll be for questions
Dialogue: 0,0:20:49.39,0:20:55.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so just speak up if you have a question\Nor clarification, or if you wish
Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.68,0:20:56.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to contradict me.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:57.10,0:20:59.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If I want to put your contradiction off,\NI'll just do it.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:59.94,0:21:01.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience chuckles)
Dialogue: 0,0:21:01.77,0:21:08.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So change. We are often told, those of us\Nwho've been in digital humanities
Dialogue: 0,0:21:08.58,0:21:14.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for a long time, and been through\Nthe whole hypertext excitement,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:14.44,0:21:20.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and all the excitement\Naround things virtual,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:20.06,0:21:25.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are told repeatedly\Nthat digital objects are fluid,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:26.09,0:21:27.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,malleable.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:28.88,0:21:34.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,More generally, that the digital world\Nis a place of constant change.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:35.09,0:21:39.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And even if you're not caught up\Nin the breathless hype of hypertext
Dialogue: 0,0:21:39.89,0:21:41.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and virtual worlds and such,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:41.86,0:21:48.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it does seem that the digital world\Nis a place of constant change.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:48.74,0:21:53.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,After all, we add records to databases.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:53.95,0:21:57.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We edit documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:58.36,0:22:01.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Our files get larger and smaller.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:03.23,0:22:08.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We add things to our digital collections,\Nand we take them away.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:08.76,0:22:11.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A lot of stuff seems to be happening.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:11.89,0:22:15.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A lot of stuff seems to be changing\Nin the digital world,
Dialogue: 0,0:22:15.92,0:22:19.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and these changes\Nare absolutely essential
Dialogue: 0,0:22:19.93,0:22:23.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the practical work that we do.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:24.91,0:22:28.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we add a record to a database.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:28.67,0:22:31.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we remove an item\Nfrom a collection.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:31.30,0:22:33.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we edit a document.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:33.26,0:22:38.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those are modifications\Nto digital objects, apparently
Dialogue: 0,0:22:38.11,0:22:41.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you might say it's the whole reason\Nfor having digital objects
Dialogue: 0,0:22:41.79,0:22:46.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so we can do things like that more easily.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:46.40,0:22:50.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So the digital world does seem to be\Na place of constant change.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:50.21,0:22:55.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm going to argue that you are,\Nwe are all, deluded.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:55.09,0:23:02.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Digital objects\Nare absolutely immutable.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:03.65,0:23:06.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, questions before us:
Dialogue: 0,0:23:06.15,0:23:11.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When a digital object changes,\Nexactly what changes?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:11.77,0:23:16.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If digital objects can't change,\Nthen what is really going on in the world
Dialogue: 0,0:23:16.07,0:23:20.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when we say, speaking loosely,\Nthat they change?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:20.28,0:23:23.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And, what is a digital object anyway?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:23.50,0:23:25.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So here we go.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:25.77,0:23:27.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is the beginning of the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:23:27.98,0:23:33.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that digital objects cannot change.\NThat they are immutable
Dialogue: 0,0:23:33.27,0:23:36.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I can give several different\Nversions of this argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:36.88,0:23:39.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is in a way the most general.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:39.66,0:23:44.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It relies upon your ordinary intuitions\Nabout sentences.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:44.45,0:23:47.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Unlike some arguments\Nto the same conclusion,
Dialogue: 0,0:23:47.72,0:23:51.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's not based on set theory\Nor discrete mathematics
Dialogue: 0,0:23:51.39,0:23:55.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nor is it restricted to the digital world.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:55.82,0:23:58.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Consider the sentence,\N"I remember Verona."
Dialogue: 0,0:23:58.82,0:24:05.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Imagine that it's the first sentence\Nof the first chapter or draft of a novel.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.22,0:24:13.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, suppose the author edits\Nthat sentence to read,
Dialogue: 0,0:24:13.08,0:24:19.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I remember, but dimly, Verona".
Dialogue: 0,0:24:19.53,0:24:25.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The first sentence of the draft\Nhas been modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.41,0:24:27.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's been changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:27.51,0:24:31.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's now longer.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:31.09,0:24:33.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I submit that if you weren't\Non your guard,
Dialogue: 0,0:24:33.83,0:24:40.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,none of those sentences\Nwould have seemed suspicious.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:41.76,0:24:47.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The problem is,\Nexactly what got longer?
Dialogue: 0,0:24:47.58,0:24:54.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Something used to be three words\Nand is now five words.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:54.08,0:24:57.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Seems like it ought to be a sentence.\NIt consists of words, after all,
Dialogue: 0,0:24:57.57,0:25:00.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but what sentences would it be?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:00.02,0:25:04.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I remember Verona"?\NNo.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:04.19,0:25:06.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That sentence did not get longer.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:06.46,0:25:13.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's true, that sentence at one time\Nconsisted only of three words,
Dialogue: 0,0:25:13.76,0:25:17.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it still consists only of three words.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:17.86,0:25:20.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That sentence, "I remember Verona",
Dialogue: 0,0:25:20.22,0:25:23.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has not gotten longer.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:23.25,0:25:29.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I remember, but dimly, Verona."\NIs that the thing that got longer?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:29.35,0:25:36.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's true that it's five words,\Nso it's longer than "I remember Verona",
Dialogue: 0,0:25:39.76,0:25:42.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's always been longer\Nthan "I remember Verona."
Dialogue: 0,0:25:43.14,0:25:47.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It has not become longer\Nthan "I remember Verona."
Dialogue: 0,0:25:48.93,0:25:53.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Did the paragraph get longer,\Nor the chapter, or the entire text?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:53.07,0:25:57.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The arguments I just gave here\Napply equally to those things as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:57.88,0:26:00.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Just think of them\Nas a longer string of words.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:07.95,0:26:12.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm pausing for just a moment in case\Nsomebody wants to interject something.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:12.82,0:26:19.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is the, you might say,\Nthe simple argument for immutability
Dialogue: 0,0:26:21.00,0:26:22.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for certain kinds of objects.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:27.13,0:26:29.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's reasonable, but I just\Nhave to stop and say,
Dialogue: 0,0:26:29.55,0:26:33.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Wait a second! What do we actually mean\Nby modification or change anyway?"
Dialogue: 0,0:26:36.25,0:26:40.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I would submit that we mean\Nby modification or change
Dialogue: 0,0:26:40.11,0:26:43.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that something loses or gains a property.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:44.88,0:26:48.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the case of the Verona sentence,\Nthe point of the last slide
Dialogue: 0,0:26:48.29,0:26:52.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is to suggest that there's\Nno plausible candidate
Dialogue: 0,0:26:54.02,0:26:59.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the landscape for that,\Nfor a thing of that kind.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:06.50,0:27:10.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience member) That which the author\Nis trying to project into the mind
Dialogue: 0,0:27:10.12,0:27:11.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the reader.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:11.35,0:27:12.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Has that changed?
Dialogue: 0,0:27:12.96,0:27:14.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience member) Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:14.37,0:27:19.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I would posit that as one\Nof the things that's changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:19.52,0:27:23.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So if you think of writing\Nas a communicative intent
Dialogue: 0,0:27:23.77,0:27:25.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of projecting my thoughts\Ninto your thoughts,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:25.95,0:27:30.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we mediated the paper,\Nword processor or whatever.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:30.25,0:27:31.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's what's changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:31.58,0:27:34.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I have two kind of conflicting\Nanswers to that,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:34.75,0:27:39.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I have a slide devoted\Nto that particular assertion.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:39.95,0:27:43.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't actually disagree\Nwith you on a deep level.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:45.95,0:27:49.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The author is, you might say,\Nto use your phrasing,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.62,0:27:56.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trying to project something else\Ninto the mind of the reader,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:58.78,0:28:04.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and so there's a sense in which\Nwhat the author's trying to project
Dialogue: 0,0:28:04.33,0:28:06.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into the mind of the reader\Nhas changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:08.93,0:28:10.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I admit that.\NThere's a sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:11.08,0:28:13.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But it's not the right sense,\Nbecause the thing
Dialogue: 0,0:28:14.31,0:28:17.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the author was\Ntrying to project at time T1
Dialogue: 0,0:28:17.33,0:28:19.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hasn't changed. It's still\N"I remember Verona."
Dialogue: 0,0:28:19.94,0:28:24.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The thing the author was trying\Nto project in T2 hasn't changed,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:24.16,0:28:26.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's still "I remember,\Nbut dimly, Verona."
Dialogue: 0,0:28:27.16,0:28:32.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The author's trying to project\Na new thing into the mind of the reader.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:32.03,0:28:33.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I would agree with that.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:35.98,0:28:40.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's a slide I wasn't going to show\Nbut since this came up I'll show later,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:41.30,0:28:45.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that uses a coffee queue\Nto illustrate the same point.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:45.50,0:28:47.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We say the first person\Nin line has changed,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:47.77,0:28:53.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the first person in line\Nused to be 50 years old,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:53.39,0:28:57.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the first person in line\Nis now 20 years old.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:57.77,0:29:04.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We're not claiming that in the interim\Nsomebody who was 50 became 20.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:04.67,0:29:11.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's a good classic, and not very often\Nheard response to this, I think.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:17.29,0:29:19.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But in the end, we end up agreeing.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:19.32,0:29:21.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience member) Well, I don't know\Nhow much you want to derail--
Dialogue: 0,0:29:21.96,0:29:26.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't want to derail your discussion,\Nbut I might argue that the first sentence
Dialogue: 0,0:29:26.46,0:29:30.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was an imperfect projection\Nto that what I'm referring to,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:30.71,0:29:32.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the second was the most accurate,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:32.25,0:29:36.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so it's not this thing T1, T2,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:36.59,0:29:39.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's that the first try was a poor one.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:39.72,0:29:45.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, you may complete\Nthis line of reasoning, I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:45.12,0:29:48.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by saying, "you know, Allan, no one\Nwas ever confused about this
Dialogue: 0,0:29:48.75,0:29:50.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"in the first place.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:50.60,0:29:54.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"We never really thought\Nthat there was a thing that changed,"
Dialogue: 0,0:29:54.88,0:30:00.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I'll say, I won't contest that,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:00.20,0:30:03.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but I'll be suspicious, and part\Nof my suspicion has to do
Dialogue: 0,0:30:03.31,0:30:05.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with UML diagrams that I have seen
Dialogue: 0,0:30:05.54,0:30:12.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that imply change where both\Nyou and I would say there is none.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:12.54,0:30:14.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(audience member 2) Is there\Na philosophically rigorous way
Dialogue: 0,0:30:14.95,0:30:20.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for identifying things\Nby their structural location
Dialogue: 0,0:30:20.62,0:30:27.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or what we may call, some kind\Nof abstract properties that they have
Dialogue: 0,0:30:27.29,0:30:31.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by virtue of the space\Nthey mark out within a thing,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:31.52,0:30:35.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so for example, the classicists\Nhave their [inaudible] of stuff,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:35.67,0:30:41.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and they, for them, Plato consists\Nof the following structure
Dialogue: 0,0:30:41.56,0:30:45.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where there may be disagreements\Nabout the exact wording of line one,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:45.46,0:30:51.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but line one of the such and such\Nwork is identifiable as a thing,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:51.60,0:30:57.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,regardless of what words or specific words\Nor characters we think occupy that space,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:57.50,0:30:59.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the same way, if we marked up\Nthe text of Moby Dick,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:59.92,0:31:01.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what are we saying\Nof the first paragraph?
Dialogue: 0,0:31:01.57,0:31:04.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is something that if this were\Na digital edition we could get an ID,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:04.93,0:31:09.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we could put to it, even if we had\Ndisagreements about specific words
Dialogue: 0,0:31:09.40,0:31:13.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are in there and I feel as though\Nour intuitions about the first sentence
Dialogue: 0,0:31:13.46,0:31:16.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of this thing\Nare sort of along those lines.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:16.63,0:31:19.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We're not talking\Nabout those specific words,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:19.55,0:31:26.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're talking about that structural piece\Nwhich then we apply our words
Dialogue: 0,0:31:26.94,0:31:29.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you're going to destabilize.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:29.62,0:31:33.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I wonder if this is just\Nkind of an intuitional way,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:33.02,0:31:36.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or if there is a philosophically\Nrigorous way of talking about that
Dialogue: 0,0:31:36.05,0:31:38.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and if so, I imagine it wouldn't change\Nwhat you're saying
Dialogue: 0,0:31:38.33,0:31:41.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it would feel more satisfying\Nif you could speak in those terms.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:43.56,0:31:48.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So actually again I think that perspective\Nthat you're taking right now
Dialogue: 0,0:31:48.32,0:31:51.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was one that was consistent\Nwith where I'm going,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:53.11,0:32:00.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's actually harder than you think\Nto identify the paragraph
Dialogue: 0,0:32:00.56,0:32:04.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,apart from its particular contents.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:04.87,0:32:07.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That is, to identify it\Nin a way that is consistent,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:07.70,0:32:12.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the logic based modeling languages\Nthat we typically use,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:12.74,0:32:15.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I think that will become\Napparent as we go.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:15.62,0:32:19.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So where was I?
Dialogue: 0,0:32:21.95,0:32:27.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, what we're claiming, and this is,\Nespecially after these two comments
Dialogue: 0,0:32:27.32,0:32:29.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is sort of becoming\N[inaudible] now, but still,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:29.51,0:32:33.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're claiming that the following\N[inaudible] is false.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:33.14,0:32:34.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There exists something {\i1}x{\i0},
Dialogue: 0,0:32:34.58,0:32:36.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and if you're familiar\Nwith first order logic
Dialogue: 0,0:32:36.38,0:32:41.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you know this is a drum roll\Nthat's needed right here,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:41.62,0:32:45.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because this is what indicates\Nour ontological commitments,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:45.52,0:32:47.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the fact that we're using\Nan existential quantifier
Dialogue: 0,0:32:47.65,0:32:51.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to say in a serious\Nontological tone of voice,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:51.75,0:32:58.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"there is an {\i1}x{\i0} such that {\i1}x{\i0}\Nat T1 had length three,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:01.88,0:33:08.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and {\i1}x{\i0} at T2 had length five.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:09.64,0:33:16.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So the claim here is that\Nan assertion of this kind
Dialogue: 0,0:33:16.27,0:33:23.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is false, there's no such thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:24.19,0:33:28.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is a topic that\NAristotle actually takes up
Dialogue: 0,0:33:28.20,0:33:31.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the Physics and also\NI think in the Metaphysics
Dialogue: 0,0:33:31.06,0:33:33.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and here's a quote from the Physics
Dialogue: 0,0:33:33.01,0:33:34.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where he's considering\Na similar problem:
Dialogue: 0,0:33:34.65,0:33:40.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"There must be\Na substrate {\i1}ὑποκείµενον{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:33:40.53,0:33:43.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"underlying all processes\Nof becoming and changing,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:43.92,0:33:47.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but what can it be\Nin the present case?"
Dialogue: 0,0:33:47.48,0:33:51.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He's asking about something\Nvery similar to what we are discussing.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:51.60,0:33:56.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What can it be in the present case?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:58.84,0:34:02.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We are totally insane,\Nbecause, guess what?
Dialogue: 0,0:34:02.96,0:34:06.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We agree that "the first sentence\Nwas three words and is now five"
Dialogue: 0,0:34:06.60,0:34:09.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can express a true proposition,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:09.91,0:34:13.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so now we're really taken aback, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:34:13.83,0:34:19.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But what we deny is that this\Nis the proposition that it asserts.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:21.06,0:34:25.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we know that this sentence\Ncan express a true proposition,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:26.31,0:34:30.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but we're denying that the proposition\Nthat's expressed by this sentence
Dialogue: 0,0:34:30.76,0:34:35.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understood as true,\Nis this proposition.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:36.71,0:34:38.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The one that has\Nthis logical form.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:39.14,0:34:42.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And yes, I'm distinguishing\Nproposition and sentence,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:42.46,0:34:44.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[inuadible]
Dialogue: 0,0:34:45.78,0:34:50.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We're denying that the sentence\Nis literally true
Dialogue: 0,0:34:53.25,0:34:59.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and in a way the notion of literal truth\Nis [inaudible] throughout.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:00.89,0:35:06.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So continuing in the same vein,\Nthe claim is that sentences
Dialogue: 0,0:35:06.99,0:35:12.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like “Jane lengthened the first sentence\Nof her novel” are idioms
Dialogue: 0,0:35:13.57,0:35:16.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,such as the average plumber\Nhas 3.2 children.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:17.42,0:35:21.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you were to represent that in logic,\Nif you were doing a logic exercise,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:21.62,0:35:24.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might be tempted if you\Nwere in a hurry and it was like [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,0:35:24.52,0:35:27.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to simply say, "well, there is something\Nthat's an average plumber,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:27.63,0:35:31.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but of course, you're off\Non the wrong foot already.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:31.18,0:35:36.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That would not be the right way\Nto formalize the proposition
Dialogue: 0,0:35:36.13,0:35:37.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,expressed by that sentence
Dialogue: 0,0:35:37.90,0:35:40.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,despite the fact that the surface\Nsyntax of the sentence
Dialogue: 0,0:35:40.66,0:35:45.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might suggest that it is.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:45.22,0:35:48.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"There's a scarcity\Nof common sense in the room,"
Dialogue: 0,0:35:48.11,0:35:51.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not saying there's something\Nwhich is the scarcity of common sense,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:51.80,0:35:58.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but even more ordinary sentences\Nlike "Lumbergh revised the TPS memo."
Dialogue: 0,0:35:58.92,0:36:00.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(my favorite movie)
Dialogue: 0,0:36:01.72,0:36:06.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sentences like that, yes,\Nthey can express true propositions,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:06.18,0:36:13.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the true proposition that they express\Nis not one that looks like "there is an {\i1}x{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:36:16.02,0:36:22.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,such that {\i1}x{\i0} is the TPS memo,\Nand {\i1}x{\i0} was devised by Lumbergh."
Dialogue: 0,0:36:23.44,0:36:30.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So it's obvious that the average plumber\Nis a kind of logical fiction,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:30.26,0:36:37.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but I don't think it's obvious\Nthat the TPS memo is a logical fiction.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:37.37,0:36:41.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Our claim is that it is.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:41.76,0:36:45.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is, and that means\Nthat if you're going to use
Dialogue: 0,0:36:45.04,0:36:47.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a logic based representation language,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:47.70,0:36:53.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like RDF, OWL, Classic,\Nwhatever your favorite is,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:53.70,0:36:58.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you have a lot of work to do\Nto get from sentences like this
Dialogue: 0,0:36:58.78,0:37:05.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into a formalism that you can trust.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:09.46,0:37:16.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The great biologist, Richard Lewontin,\Nmade a little more of a reprise of remarks
Dialogue: 0,0:37:20.46,0:37:22.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by Rosenbluth and Wiener,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:22.85,0:37:27.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"The price of metaphor\Nis eternal vigilance."
Dialogue: 0,0:37:32.94,0:37:37.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you want to get\Nfrom an ordinary sentence like this
Dialogue: 0,0:37:37.30,0:37:42.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into a representation in a logic based\Nknowledge representation language,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:42.37,0:37:46.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you want to be able\Nto really trust that representation
Dialogue: 0,0:37:46.36,0:37:50.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to never lead you astray in inferencing,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:50.44,0:37:53.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's hard.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:53.39,0:37:58.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But if you don't get there,\Nyou'll be relying on metaphors
Dialogue: 0,0:37:58.36,0:38:00.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and idioms and logical fictions,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:00.40,0:38:07.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the price of metaphor is eternal\Nvigilance against confusing yourself.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:08.17,0:38:12.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Drawing UML rectangles\Nfor things that don't exist.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:14.61,0:38:19.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I'm going to move quickly\Nthrough some of these slides.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:19.94,0:38:25.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sort of taking the temperature\Nof my audience,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:25.44,0:38:29.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think we've assimilated\Nthis basic argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:29.93,0:38:33.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm capable of belaboring things\Nat great length,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:33.85,0:38:38.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so I think I'll not.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:38.32,0:38:45.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I do want to suggest that\Nif you still find the argument irritating,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:46.75,0:38:50.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and are sure there must be\Nsome way out,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:51.97,0:38:56.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might see your problem\Nas trying to decide
Dialogue: 0,0:38:56.88,0:39:01.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which one of these\Nthree things to reject:
Dialogue: 0,0:39:01.19,0:39:04.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,documents are strings,\Nstrings cannot be modified,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:04.50,0:39:09.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,documents can be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:09.13,0:39:12.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can reject\Nmore than one, but why?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:12.44,0:39:16.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you can justify rejecting one,\Nyou've gotten around the puzzle
Dialogue: 0,0:39:16.29,0:39:18.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I presented you.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:18.79,0:39:21.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But, for each one that you reject,\Nyou have an obligation.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:21.18,0:39:26.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you reject the first, you need to offer\Nan alternative definition of document.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:26.52,0:39:29.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One that supports modification.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:29.54,0:39:34.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you reject the second,\Nyou need to reconcile modification
Dialogue: 0,0:39:34.35,0:39:41.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with the extensionality,\Nwith the apparent immutability of strings
Dialogue: 0,0:39:43.94,0:39:47.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and if you reject the third,\Nthen you have to give some account
Dialogue: 0,0:39:47.89,0:39:51.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of what's really going on
Dialogue: 0,0:39:51.22,0:39:56.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in cases of modification,\Nsuch as editing.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:56.84,0:40:01.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If editing is not the modification\Nof the document,
Dialogue: 0,0:40:01.57,0:40:04.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,strictly speaking, then what is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:04.30,0:40:06.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So whichever one you reject,
Dialogue: 0,0:40:06.84,0:40:11.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you've got a kind of an obligation\Nin order to make your rejection
Dialogue: 0,0:40:11.19,0:40:14.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,credible, plausible.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:14.28,0:40:21.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Just for fun, I'm going to call this\Nthe MITH feud, 2013
Dialogue: 0,0:40:23.80,0:40:29.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and going to ask you,\Nthose of you who think,
Dialogue: 0,0:40:29.49,0:40:33.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm going to ask you which\Nof the assertions
Dialogue: 0,0:40:33.54,0:40:39.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the inconsistent triad\Nyou would reject.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:39.46,0:40:43.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm slowing down\Njust to give you a chance to form your--
Dialogue: 0,0:40:43.41,0:40:46.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They can't all be true, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.70,0:40:49.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To form your opinion.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:49.43,0:40:52.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Alright.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:52.07,0:40:54.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Who wants to reject one?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:54.31,0:40:56.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience)\NDocuments are not strings.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:56.11,0:40:57.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Documents are not strings.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:57.94,0:41:04.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The party of documents are not strings?
Dialogue: 0,0:41:04.79,0:41:11.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Okay. Who wants to reject\N"strings cannot be modified"?
Dialogue: 0,0:41:14.14,0:41:17.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wow! Three. Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:17.12,0:41:23.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Who wants to reject\N"documents can be modified"?
Dialogue: 0,0:41:23.78,0:41:29.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Interesting. I've never had\Nsuch an even distribution.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:37.82,0:41:40.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,With respect to the first assertion,\N"documents are strings",
Dialogue: 0,0:41:41.68,0:41:46.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I have to confess that it was\Na convenience to some extent
Dialogue: 0,0:41:47.86,0:41:50.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to assert that documents are strings.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:50.90,0:41:57.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[Karen Rickett] and I first presented this\Nat Extreme Markup, now called Balisage,
Dialogue: 0,0:41:58.78,0:42:03.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those are XML zealots,\Nand so we used the XML definition
Dialogue: 0,0:42:03.02,0:42:05.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for the XML standard:
Dialogue: 0,0:42:05.85,0:42:08.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"A textual object\Nis a well formed XML document if:
Dialogue: 0,0:42:08.21,0:42:10.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,taken as a whole, it matches\Nthe production labeled document..."
Dialogue: 0,0:42:10.76,0:42:14.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the only kind of thing that can match\Nthe production is a string.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:19.77,0:42:22.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's harder than you might think.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:23.48,0:42:26.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I shouldn't say that\Nyou might think, but--
Dialogue: 0,0:42:26.14,0:42:29.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's harder than sometimes, I think
Dialogue: 0,0:42:29.36,0:42:32.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to get out of this simply by denying\Nthat documents are strings,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:32.72,0:42:37.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because most of the definitions\Nof document are text.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:37.53,0:42:40.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even when they're not definitions\Nin terms of strings,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:40.79,0:42:46.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are nevertheless similar enough\Nin the right respects
Dialogue: 0,0:42:46.17,0:42:48.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that they're also unmodifiable.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:48.87,0:42:51.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,At this conference, for instance,\Nit's very common to say
Dialogue: 0,0:42:51.38,0:42:55.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that a document is a graph,\Nmeaning this kind of graph, you know?
Dialogue: 0,0:42:58.14,0:43:00.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they mean that\Nin the mathematical sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:00.35,0:43:05.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But a graph is a set of tuples,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:05.52,0:43:12.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and sets of tuples can't change because\Nsets can't lose their data. [Grambergs]
Dialogue: 0,0:43:12.57,0:43:15.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So graphs don't work.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:15.94,0:43:18.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you look closely at FRBR's notion\Nof the expression
Dialogue: 0,0:43:18.89,0:43:23.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as symbolic notation,\Nit's pretty much string like,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:23.15,0:43:25.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even if it's not a string.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:25.31,0:43:29.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A string in the mathematical sense\Nis a function from integers
Dialogue: 0,0:43:29.74,0:43:32.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into some domain of elements.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:32.37,0:43:35.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The notion of expression\Nis not exactly mathematical,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:35.11,0:43:38.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's clearly a sequence of elements
Dialogue: 0,0:43:38.25,0:43:42.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and our intuitions about\Nthe Verona sentence, I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:42.53,0:43:46.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,count against FRBR's\Nnotion of expression.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:46.01,0:43:50.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Similarly, contextual criticism\Ncancels notion of a text,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:50.35,0:43:57.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I also think is not the kind of thing\Nthat can be changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:01.94,0:44:07.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm going to come back\Nto that in a minute,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:07.38,0:44:10.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so this is not the end of [inaudible].
Dialogue: 0,0:44:13.22,0:44:14.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Strings cannot be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:14.56,0:44:17.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Some of you said that strings\Ncannot be modified
Dialogue: 0,0:44:17.18,0:44:19.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as things can be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:19.16,0:44:23.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So modification on my account\Nis a losing or a gaining of a property.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:28.29,0:44:34.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I would claim that a string\Nlike "13571" has properties,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:34.87,0:44:37.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it has no properties\Nthat it can lose.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:38.55,0:44:40.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It has the property of having\N[inaudible] five tokens,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:40.94,0:44:43.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of having one token [inaudible] twice,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:43.07,0:44:46.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[inaudible] 35, and so on,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:46.08,0:44:53.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but I would say that that string,\Nthat string, can't lose these properties.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:53.80,0:44:56.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That string cannot lose those properties.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:56.100,0:45:01.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We cannot identify a thing that once\Nhad one of those properties
Dialogue: 0,0:45:01.33,0:45:03.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and later, did not.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:03.94,0:45:08.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, I realize there are sub-properties\Na string can have, and lose,
Dialogue: 0,0:45:08.13,0:45:15.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for instance, "13571" has the property\Nof being talked about in college [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,0:45:15.50,0:45:20.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it will lose that property.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:22.42,0:45:25.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But that's a pretty thin change, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:25.11,0:45:27.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's not a change to the string.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:27.53,0:45:32.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's a change in the relationship\Nbetween the string and some other thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:32.96,0:45:37.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's like you might not be\Nthe tallest person in the room,
Dialogue: 0,0:45:37.58,0:45:41.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but when the tallest person\Nin the room leaves,
Dialogue: 0,0:45:41.44,0:45:44.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might become\Nthe tallest person in the room.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:44.24,0:45:47.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Have you changed?\NI would say no.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:47.64,0:45:51.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So the thing about strings is that\Nalthough they have some properties,
Dialogue: 0,0:45:51.86,0:45:57.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all of their inherent properties,\Nthey have essentially
Dialogue: 0,0:45:57.32,0:45:58.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so they can't lose them.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:58.93,0:46:03.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They only have their relation\Nproperties contingently.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:03.37,0:46:09.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So that is sort of the interesting thing\Nabout things like strings.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:09.06,0:46:11.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they have some contingent properties,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:11.22,0:46:15.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but all of their contingent\Nproperties are relational.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:15.75,0:46:19.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They have some inherent properties\Nwhich could count as properties
Dialogue: 0,0:46:19.67,0:46:20.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,generating modification
Dialogue: 0,0:46:20.81,0:46:23.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you could lose them,\Nbut all of their inherent properties
Dialogue: 0,0:46:23.52,0:46:26.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are essential, so they can't\Nlose them, so they don't change.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:33.21,0:46:37.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In favor of "documents\Ncan be modified", we all believe it.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:39.81,0:46:41.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's part of what we say and do.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:42.37,0:46:44.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So these last three slides\Nare supposed to suggest
Dialogue: 0,0:46:44.88,0:46:49.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that it's not easy\Nto get out of this problem.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:53.06,0:47:08.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There are, in my mind,\Nfour relatively significant responses.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:09.23,0:47:15.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One is to deny that documents are anything\Nof the kind I've been saying they are.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:15.87,0:47:18.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That they're material\Nobjects in the world,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:18.56,0:47:20.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and material objects\Nin the world can change.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:21.97,0:47:26.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Another is to say that documents\Nare social objects
Dialogue: 0,0:47:27.52,0:47:29.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and social objects can change.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:31.62,0:47:37.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Another is to say that every time\Nwe edit a document
Dialogue: 0,0:47:37.37,0:47:43.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's actually\Na new document being created,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:43.47,0:47:46.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so documents aren't really changing,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:46.23,0:47:53.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but what's happening is that\Nnew documents are being created,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:54.07,0:48:00.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so this does deny that documents\Ncan be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:00.74,0:48:06.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The last one, which I gave\Nan asterisk to because I think
Dialogue: 0,0:48:06.07,0:48:13.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's the one-- I'm not an eliminativist,\Nit's the one I'm going for,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:16.14,0:48:18.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the string-in-a-role strategy,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:18.21,0:48:22.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which argues that documents\Nare things like strings,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:22.39,0:48:26.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but they are not just strings,\Nthey are strings
Dialogue: 0,0:48:26.48,0:48:30.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a particular communicative role.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:31.88,0:48:33.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) Can I\Ntry another way out?
Dialogue: 0,0:48:33.66,0:48:34.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:34.72,0:48:36.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) So, what if\NI take the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:48:36.74,0:48:42.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the three assertions\Nare {\i1}not{\i0} contradictory?
Dialogue: 0,0:48:42.21,0:48:47.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So take a look at the second one.\NIf we think of a string as an element
Dialogue: 0,0:48:47.81,0:48:52.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,drawn from the set of all possible\Ncombinations of characters,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:52.24,0:48:55.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you're simply drawing\Na new element from that set,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:55.15,0:49:00.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so if you look at it from that perspective\Nthe three are not contradictory.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:00.05,0:49:02.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I guess this is closest\Nto the new document theory,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:02.84,0:49:07.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is that when you modify a document,\Njust simply drawing another string
Dialogue: 0,0:49:07.42,0:49:09.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from the set, you're not\Nmodifying the string.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:10.05,0:49:12.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I would say that is\Nthe new document theory.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:12.70,0:49:18.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Which is I think\Nthe most popular response,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:18.10,0:49:25.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particularly from [inaudible]\Ncomputer scientist.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:29.72,0:49:32.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It does deny that documents\Ncan be modified,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:32.16,0:49:39.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which is, I think, that strictly speaking,\Nliterally speaking,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:39.07,0:49:40.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,documents can be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:40.99,0:49:47.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,0:49:47.48,0:49:49.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So the string-in-a-role strategy.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:53.25,0:49:56.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,string-in-a-role is somewhat harsh\Nin that it does deny
Dialogue: 0,0:49:56.60,0:49:59.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our common sense belief\Nthat documents can be modified.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:59.91,0:50:03.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It also doesn't just do that, by the way.\NIt also finesses the definition
Dialogue: 0,0:50:03.87,0:50:07.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of document in a very subtle\Nand important way.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:10.37,0:50:17.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This response claims that a document\Nis a string in a particular role.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:23.38,0:50:29.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That in fact, being a document\Nis a property that strings come to have
Dialogue: 0,0:50:29.82,0:50:35.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in particular contingent\Nsocial situations.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:35.70,0:50:40.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And here's the finessing,\Nand it's an ontological
Dialogue: 0,0:50:44.38,0:50:46.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maneuver, you might say.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:47.86,0:50:52.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,On this account, document\Nis not a type of entity.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:59.29,0:51:03.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Being a document is a role\Nthat some entities come to have
Dialogue: 0,0:51:06.69,0:51:09.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in particular circumstances.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:12.26,0:51:19.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So document is a kind\Nof nominalization of a relationship,
Dialogue: 0,0:51:21.33,0:51:25.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the kind of thing\Nyou would not express as--
Dialogue: 0,0:51:26.45,0:51:31.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at least it's plausible\Nthat it would be inappropriate
Dialogue: 0,0:51:31.57,0:51:38.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to express in your UML diagram,\Nit would be inappropriate to have
Dialogue: 0,0:51:41.12,0:51:44.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a rectangle for documents.\NInstead you would have
Dialogue: 0,0:51:44.94,0:51:51.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a rectangle for strings, and an arc\Nfor being in a documentary role,
Dialogue: 0,0:51:52.59,0:51:53.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or something like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:56.72,0:52:01.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So compare this, and I get\Nthe example from Guarino and Welty,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:01.33,0:52:08.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is very well known,\Nthe concepts of person and student.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:11.74,0:52:17.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A student is a person\Nin a particular role.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:17.87,0:52:20.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A person who has enrolled, let's say.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:24.08,0:52:29.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But a person is not a role\Nthat something else takes on.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:30.70,0:52:32.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the intuition here.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:36.44,0:52:40.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A person can become a student,\Nand later cease to be a student.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:45.42,0:52:47.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We'll see this example again in a bit.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:54.92,0:52:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So just summarizing,\Ndocuments can enroll.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:03.12,0:53:07.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is consistent with not just\NGuarino and Welty but also John Searle,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:08.05,0:53:12.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you're familiar with his writing\Nabout the ontology of the social world.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:12.38,0:53:15.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Documents are strings,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:16.100,0:53:22.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but strings are only documents\Nwhile they are in a communicative role.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:24.66,0:53:29.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because documents are strings,\Nthey're going to be immutable.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:29.29,0:53:35.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The thing that is a document can't change.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:35.76,0:53:39.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I mentioned the burden\Nthat one has to bear
Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.18,0:53:43.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if he denied modification.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:43.23,0:53:50.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How do we give an account\Nof what apparent modification must be?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:52.63,0:53:55.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I know I'm waving my hands\Na bit at this point,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:55.18,0:54:00.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but roughly, when we say\Nthat a document is being modified
Dialogue: 0,0:54:00.96,0:54:05.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what's going on is that a person\Nor persons comes to prefer
Dialogue: 0,0:54:05.99,0:54:09.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a different string for a particular\Ncommunicative role
Dialogue: 0,0:54:09.54,0:54:13.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than the string previously\Npreferred for that role.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:14.13,0:54:18.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think I may have heard that\Neven from a couple of you already.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:29.72,0:54:33.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Apparent changes in digital documents,\Nand you can generalize this account
Dialogue: 0,0:54:33.01,0:54:37.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to all digital objects,
Dialogue: 0,0:54:38.34,0:54:40.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,apparent changes in digital objects.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:40.100,0:54:44.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Remember the constantly changing\Ndigital world I referred to
Dialogue: 0,0:54:44.93,0:54:46.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the beginning.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:46.30,0:54:51.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Apparent changes in digital objects\Nare actually changes in us,
Dialogue: 0,0:54:51.85,0:54:55.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the person or persons interacting\Nwith those objects.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:56.22,0:55:00.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're not changes\Nin the documents themselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:01.07,0:55:04.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So what changes\Nwhen a digital object changes?
Dialogue: 0,0:55:04.03,0:55:07.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To answer the question\Nposed earlier, you do.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:13.82,0:55:16.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I promised you some Eliminativism.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:20.04,0:55:27.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you find it hard to accept\Nthat documents cannot change,
Dialogue: 0,0:55:29.41,0:55:31.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you should find it hard to accept,
Dialogue: 0,0:55:31.38,0:55:37.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because it is part\Nof our conceptual scheme, I think.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:41.82,0:55:43.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There is another way out.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:43.97,0:55:46.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(voice in audience) This is\Nsuch a relief to me, Allan.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:46.19,0:55:47.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(laughter)
Dialogue: 0,0:55:48.99,0:55:51.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's another way out, trust me!
Dialogue: 0,0:55:51.62,0:55:53.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You're not going to be happy without it.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:07.52,0:56:11.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To rehearse where we are,\Nit is commonly believed that documents
Dialogue: 0,0:56:11.94,0:56:15.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can be revised, edited, shortened,\Nlengthened, and modified in various ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:15.27,0:56:17.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That belief is widespread\Nand deeply rooted.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:17.66,0:56:21.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I characterized it as part\Nof our conceptual scheme.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:21.45,0:56:27.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Perhaps it is so deeply rooted\Nthat it's actually integral
Dialogue: 0,0:56:27.79,0:56:32.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to our concept of a document.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:32.06,0:56:36.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If that's the case, then we can\Nexpress this relationship this way.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:36.91,0:56:42.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If there are documents, then there\Nare modifiable documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:42.59,0:56:47.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It may be more natural to say, if there\Nare documents, then they are modifiable.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:47.04,0:56:54.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But we've shown that there are\Nno modifiable documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:55.29,0:57:00.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,From the claim that if there are documents\Nthere are modifiable documents,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:00.42,0:57:04.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the assertion "there are\Nno modifiable documents",
Dialogue: 0,0:57:04.61,0:57:08.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the conclusion is only\Nthat there are no documents,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:08.79,0:57:10.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that's elimination.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:16.22,0:57:18.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let me just briefly say that there is\Nanother line of reasoning
Dialogue: 0,0:57:18.84,0:57:24.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the same conclusion, that looks at\Nthe constricts in discrete mathematics
Dialogue: 0,0:57:24.73,0:57:27.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are typically used\Nto define digital documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:27.70,0:57:34.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All of those concepts, whether they\Nbe strings or graphs or relations
Dialogue: 0,0:57:34.45,0:57:38.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all are eventually defined\Nin terms of sets
Dialogue: 0,0:57:38.16,0:57:43.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and our standard set theory holds\Nthat membership in a set
Dialogue: 0,0:57:45.37,0:57:48.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is essential to the identity of the set.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:48.31,0:57:50.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sets cannot lose or gain members.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:51.28,0:57:53.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sometimes mathematicians speak loosely,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:53.37,0:57:55.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but when they're not speaking loosely,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:55.47,0:58:02.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they do recognize that one set {\i1}S{\i0} and one\Nset {\i1}T{\i0} are identical if, and only if,
Dialogue: 0,0:58:02.94,0:58:05.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they have exactly the same members
Dialogue: 0,0:58:05.64,0:58:10.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that's a forward and back,\Nthat's not just at a time.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:11.70,0:58:13.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sets are used to define strings.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:13.81,0:58:18.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're used to define\Nthe relations in a--
Dialogue: 0,0:58:18.76,0:58:20.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually, let me expand on that a bit.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:20.62,0:58:27.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In a relational database model we see\Ninformation as organized in a table.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:27.90,0:58:33.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And our textbooks tell us that table\Nis understood as a mathematical relation,
Dialogue: 0,0:58:33.28,0:58:36.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which is a set of {\i1}n{\i0} sized tuples.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:36.84,0:58:43.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We speak of adding or deleting\Nrecords from tables.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:43.40,0:58:50.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That corresponds to adding\Nor deleting tuples from a set,
Dialogue: 0,0:58:52.75,0:58:56.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and having the set survive the change.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:58.71,0:59:02.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sets cannot lose or gain elements,\Nwhatever they are.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:06.08,0:59:12.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The conclusion is documents\Ncan never change.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:13.48,0:59:16.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can't add a record to a database.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:17.97,0:59:20.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can't delete a record\Nfrom a database.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:23.53,0:59:27.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Database switched to table here,\Nbut it doesn't make any difference.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:27.22,0:59:30.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A database table is a relation.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:30.14,0:59:32.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A relation is a set.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:32.24,0:59:35.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sets have their members essentially.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:35.20,0:59:37.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They can't lose their [inaudible].
Dialogue: 0,0:59:37.53,0:59:40.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Same goes for collections.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:40.32,0:59:42.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Collections are often defined as sets.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:42.26,0:59:43.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think I've got them coming up here.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:43.74,0:59:45.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yeah, there we go!
Dialogue: 0,0:59:45.24,0:59:50.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Good old [Ed Fox]'s students gave\Nthis account of the digital library.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:50.82,0:59:54.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Collection is a set. There, they say it.\NThey even use curly braces.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:55.86,0:59:59.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If a collection is a set,\Nyou can't add anything to it.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:00.24,1:00:03.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Nor can you remove it from it.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:08.79,1:00:11.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,1:00:14.62,1:00:19.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Suddenly all these things\Nthat we had in our digital world
Dialogue: 0,1:00:19.98,1:00:24.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that we're very familiar with,\Nvery familiar,
Dialogue: 0,1:00:24.74,1:00:28.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,talked about all the time,
Dialogue: 0,1:00:28.38,1:00:35.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seem to incorporate logical\Ninconsistency in their very nature.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:50.22,1:00:53.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One response is to say, no,
Dialogue: 0,1:00:57.06,1:01:03.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's not inconsistent, it's just that\Nour notion of those things was inadequate
Dialogue: 0,1:01:03.78,1:01:07.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we have to face the fact that\Nyou can't add something to a collection.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:08.45,1:01:11.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can't subtract\Na record from a database.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:11.27,1:01:13.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can't edit a document.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:13.44,1:01:16.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's one response.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:16.30,1:01:19.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The eliminativist says, you know what?
Dialogue: 0,1:01:19.60,1:01:22.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you're going to go\Nthat far, you give up--
Dialogue: 0,1:01:24.32,1:01:29.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rather than adopt a position that is\Nthat repugnant to my conceptual scheme,
Dialogue: 0,1:01:30.52,1:01:36.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,my notion of a document,\Na collection, a database,
Dialogue: 0,1:01:36.50,1:01:40.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'd rather just say there aren't any,
Dialogue: 0,1:01:40.62,1:01:47.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the idea of a database table\Nthat you can't add a record to
Dialogue: 0,1:01:48.92,1:01:52.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is just not consistent\Nwith my notion of database table.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:52.68,1:01:56.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) As a computer scientist,\Ncan I offer what I seem to think
Dialogue: 0,1:01:56.35,1:01:58.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is an easier way out?
Dialogue: 0,1:01:58.24,1:02:02.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When you're modifying a table,
Dialogue: 0,1:02:02.39,1:02:08.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is actually going back to my attempt\Nat going down the path of a new document.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:08.08,1:02:11.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What you're doing is you're actually\Nchoosing a new relationship
Dialogue: 0,1:02:11.80,1:02:15.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whose new properties\Nreflect the differences
Dialogue: 0,1:02:15.68,1:02:17.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that adding [inaudible] a table.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:17.49,1:02:19.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So when we say\Nwe're adding a new table,
Dialogue: 0,1:02:19.68,1:02:23.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's a shorthand for saying\Nwe're manifesting a new relationship
Dialogue: 0,1:02:23.64,1:02:26.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in which the only difference\Nbetween this relationship
Dialogue: 0,1:02:26.54,1:02:31.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the previous relationship is a table\Nthat is the row that I modified.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:31.74,1:02:37.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And again, I actually am not\Ngoing to contest that view
Dialogue: 0,1:02:38.65,1:02:43.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the point I want to make\Nis that literally speaking,
Dialogue: 0,1:02:47.59,1:02:51.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the relation is not modified.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:52.47,1:02:55.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) Yeah, you're choosing\Na new relationship from the universe
Dialogue: 0,1:02:55.83,1:02:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of all possible relationships
Dialogue: 0,1:02:57.75,1:02:59.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and when you're saying\Nwe modified the table,
Dialogue: 0,1:02:59.82,1:03:02.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's just a shorthand for doing that
Dialogue: 0,1:03:02.10,1:03:04.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I think that doesn't deny\Nthe existence of documents
Dialogue: 0,1:03:04.65,1:03:09.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or tables or anything else,\Nbut gets us out of this jam.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:09.62,1:03:13.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I would say it doesn't\Nget us out of the jam,
Dialogue: 0,1:03:13.32,1:03:20.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because what we're agreeing\Nis what's really going on.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:24.80,1:03:31.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But, I maintain that a relation cannot--
Dialogue: 0,1:03:35.01,1:03:40.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you cannot add\Na record to a relation.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:40.58,1:03:43.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) That's right,\Nit's a new relation.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:43.06,1:03:45.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, it's a different relation in a way.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:47.47,1:03:51.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we actually agree, I think.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:51.40,1:03:55.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) But you're denying\Nthe existence of the document.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:55.47,1:04:02.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What I'm saying is that\Nif the immutability of relations
Dialogue: 0,1:04:03.13,1:04:09.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is repugnant to your\Nconcept of a relation,
Dialogue: 0,1:04:09.87,1:04:14.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then there is another approach,\Nand that is to deny
Dialogue: 0,1:04:14.11,1:04:19.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that there are, I have to say\Ntables in this case.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:19.45,1:04:22.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There are database tables.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:22.32,1:04:26.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So a database table\Nis a modifiable relation,
Dialogue: 0,1:04:26.62,1:04:29.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but there are no modifiable relations.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:29.10,1:04:30.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Therefore, there are no database tables.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:30.74,1:04:33.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's how the argument goes.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:33.51,1:04:37.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In Khan's original paper\Non the relational model
Dialogue: 0,1:04:37.49,1:04:44.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he sets up this near convergence\Nthat we have here.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:47.13,1:04:50.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He says something like,\NI can't remember exactly,
Dialogue: 0,1:04:50.28,1:04:57.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but he talks about how an actual database\Nover time is really a function
Dialogue: 0,1:04:58.72,1:05:05.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from times to sets,\Nfrom sets to tuples.
Dialogue: 0,1:05:05.64,1:05:11.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you could say to me,\N"Allan, you're completely confused here.
Dialogue: 0,1:05:11.23,1:05:17.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"A database is a function as Khan says.\NA database is a function from times
Dialogue: 0,1:05:17.76,1:05:19.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to sets of tuples."
Dialogue: 0,1:05:22.08,1:05:29.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'd say, yes, that may be true,\Nbut there's still nothing
Dialogue: 0,1:05:29.19,1:05:31.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the landscape that's mutable.
Dialogue: 0,1:05:32.05,1:05:39.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So when you start writing assertions\Nor a modeling framework,
Dialogue: 0,1:05:41.60,1:05:48.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,UML, RDF, whatever, you had better not\Nhave variables ranging over tables
Dialogue: 0,1:05:51.64,1:05:58.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are modifiable because that would be\Na literal interpretation of the sentence
Dialogue: 0,1:05:58.77,1:06:04.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you and I have agreed on\Ninterpreting with a paraphrase.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:04.53,1:06:06.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) Yeah,\NI guess as a computer scientist,
Dialogue: 0,1:06:06.73,1:06:11.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you are working in the domain\Nof functional programming
Dialogue: 0,1:06:11.07,1:06:14.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't think any of this\Nwould seem as a shock.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:18.69,1:06:23.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I guess I don't see the cognitive\Ndissonance that should spring in my head,
Dialogue: 0,1:06:23.53,1:06:25.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you're saying\Nshould spring in my head--
Dialogue: 0,1:06:30.65,1:06:32.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I think maybe you're right.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:36.11,1:06:40.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That at this point, having talked\Nabout the paraphrases [inaudible],
Dialogue: 0,1:06:40.35,1:06:42.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the kind of dissonance\Nstarted dissipating.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:44.60,1:06:49.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The problem is most acute\Nwhen we're trying to actually develop
Dialogue: 0,1:06:50.41,1:06:54.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a conceptual model for a repository
Dialogue: 0,1:06:54.74,1:07:01.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or a preservation system\Nor a document management system
Dialogue: 0,1:07:01.64,1:07:06.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we're drawing boxes\Nand arrows and have an interpretation
Dialogue: 0,1:07:06.44,1:07:08.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,[inaudible] watching.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:11.36,1:07:16.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The decisions that we have\Nto make are actually hard.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:16.60,1:07:19.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let me take a specific example.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:19.14,1:07:23.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, [Planets?], which is based on PREMIS,
Dialogue: 0,1:07:23.83,1:07:28.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has a nice UML diagram\Nof its preservation model.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:29.81,1:07:35.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they classify\Ndocuments as bitstreams,
Dialogue: 0,1:07:35.58,1:07:42.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and they also attach a modification date\Nto the document class
Dialogue: 0,1:07:47.60,1:07:54.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but if a document is actually\Na particular bitstream,
Dialogue: 0,1:07:54.54,1:07:59.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then it is not going to be modifiable.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:59.78,1:08:04.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You think of the class of bitstreams\Nas the class of every common
Dialogue: 0,1:08:04.96,1:08:07.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rhetorically possible bitstream.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:07.10,1:08:10.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A document is one of them.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:10.15,1:08:16.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That document cannot become\Nsome other bitstream.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:19.18,1:08:22.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To me, that just says well,\Nthere's interesting work to do here,
Dialogue: 0,1:08:23.34,1:08:30.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if we're going to have a UML diagram\Nthat matches our intuitions
Dialogue: 0,1:08:32.76,1:08:37.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a little more closely or that lets us work\Nwith these a little better,
Dialogue: 0,1:08:39.42,1:08:45.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but my general point is, if you take\Nthe sentences we are likely to articulate,
Dialogue: 0,1:08:46.87,1:08:51.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and try to represent them in logic base
Dialogue: 0,1:08:51.72,1:08:56.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of conceptual modeling language,
Dialogue: 0,1:08:56.60,1:08:59.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even if you're pretty good at it,\Neven if you try hard,
Dialogue: 0,1:08:59.95,1:09:04.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you will end up just like\Nthe Premise Planets people did,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:04.66,1:09:09.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not creating a system\Nlike you just described
Dialogue: 0,1:09:09.24,1:09:11.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in your paraphrases,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:11.60,1:09:16.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but creating one that actually\Nhas contradictions in it.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:16.59,1:09:18.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most of the time it doesn't matter
Dialogue: 0,1:09:18.83,1:09:21.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because there's so much English involved,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:21.20,1:09:23.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's so much human\Nintervention involved,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:23.68,1:09:26.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're able to navigate these problems,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:26.23,1:09:32.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the more we move towards\Nautomatic inferencing
Dialogue: 0,1:09:32.40,1:09:35.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,over our ontologies\Nand over our assertions,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:35.86,1:09:41.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the more likely it is that we start\Nto replicate every paradox
Dialogue: 0,1:09:41.11,1:09:45.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the last 2,000 years\Nin these lights-out
Dialogue: 0,1:09:45.39,1:09:50.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,automated inferencing systems\Nthat are just completely unforgiving,
Dialogue: 0,1:09:50.11,1:09:52.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that don't understand\Nwhat we really mean.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:52.01,1:09:54.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man 3 in audience) Can I add\Nan element of time management here--
Dialogue: 0,1:09:54.65,1:09:56.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man in audience) Feel free\Nto shut me up if you--
Dialogue: 0,1:09:56.70,1:10:00.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man 3 in audience) No, it's just\Nthat we are running out of time,
Dialogue: 0,1:10:00.53,1:10:06.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so, Allan, could we shift over\Nto a couple of questions before we stop?
Dialogue: 0,1:10:07.79,1:10:09.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man 4 in audience) I think I need a bit
Dialogue: 0,1:10:09.69,1:10:11.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of clarification on what\Nis meant by document
Dialogue: 0,1:10:11.57,1:10:17.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because you talked about documents\Nas a sentence, even a database.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:17.60,1:10:20.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It seems that it could apply\Nto any sort of digital object.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:20.61,1:10:23.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is that what you mean,\Nand if that is the case,
Dialogue: 0,1:10:23.30,1:10:28.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then although I could agree that\Na digital object or document
Dialogue: 0,1:10:28.90,1:10:33.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is definitely a set or a bitstream,
Dialogue: 0,1:10:33.54,1:10:37.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I keep on disagreeing that it's a string,
Dialogue: 0,1:10:37.09,1:10:42.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because although a string is a set,\Nthere are other properties and restraints
Dialogue: 0,1:10:42.10,1:10:45.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are associated\Nwith the fact that it's a string.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:45.16,1:10:48.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example, it has\Na certain order, a sequentiality.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:48.52,1:10:51.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And that doesn't exist in every document.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:51.09,1:10:53.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First of all, [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,1:10:53.25,1:10:56.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so I think I need a bit more clarification\Non what you mean by document
Dialogue: 0,1:10:56.05,1:10:59.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and [inaudible].
Dialogue: 0,1:10:59.41,1:11:03.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, I don't have a--
Dialogue: 0,1:11:04.74,1:11:06.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you may have noticed in the beginning.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:06.28,1:11:12.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't necessarily want to tie myself\Nto any particular account of document,
Dialogue: 0,1:11:12.61,1:11:19.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,either specific definition\Nor colloquial notion,
Dialogue: 0,1:11:24.66,1:11:31.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so I would say, I'll take candidates\Nfor what a document is.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:35.71,1:11:41.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Presumably, in ordinary circumstances,\Nsomething like the TPS memo.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:41.43,1:11:45.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Something that can be revised,\Nsomething that can be authored,
Dialogue: 0,1:11:45.28,1:11:48.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something that communicates,
Dialogue: 0,1:11:48.71,1:11:55.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and when we look at definitions,\Nwhether it's an FRBR, or a [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,1:11:55.00,1:12:01.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or the XML standard, we often see\Naccounts of a document
Dialogue: 0,1:12:04.65,1:12:10.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that do make it look\Nlike a structure of some kind,
Dialogue: 0,1:12:10.71,1:12:15.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,often a string of symbols.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:15.03,1:12:18.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But maybe one clarification,\Nthough is that clearly,
Dialogue: 0,1:12:18.51,1:12:25.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not focused attention\Non the repeatable abstraction,
Dialogue: 0,1:12:26.05,1:12:30.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not on the material object\Nthat embodies the abstraction.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:30.39,1:12:34.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(man 4 in audience) Yeah, absolutely.\NThat's why I think [inaudible] really works.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:34.03,1:12:39.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not trying to contradict\Nthe conclusions that you attempt to draw.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:39.94,1:12:43.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think that you managed to convince me\Nthat a document is an immutable object.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:43.52,1:12:46.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I just don't think it's a good idea\Nto call it a string,
Dialogue: 0,1:12:47.35,1:12:51.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because a lot of documents\Nwill not be strings.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:51.48,1:12:56.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I'm going to take an example\Nfrom what I know better than [inaudible].
Dialogue: 0,1:12:56.32,1:12:59.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I consider them documents in that\Nthey are revised, they're edited,
Dialogue: 0,1:12:59.84,1:13:05.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they communicate a set of instructions\Nand a lot more, if you will.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:05.94,1:13:10.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Although there is definitely some sense\Nof sequence, they do not operate
Dialogue: 0,1:13:10.52,1:13:16.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as a sequence only because even though\Nthey communicate something
Dialogue: 0,1:13:16.27,1:13:19.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is supposed to happen in time,
Dialogue: 0,1:13:19.74,1:13:22.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so there's one event after the other,
Dialogue: 0,1:13:22.28,1:13:24.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they also represent [inaudible]
Dialogue: 0,1:13:24.39,1:13:26.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,events that happen at the same time
Dialogue: 0,1:13:26.41,1:13:30.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so you have at least\Ntwo sequences that are concurrent.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:30.93,1:13:34.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And this is not just thinking\Nin terms of a graph.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:34.86,1:13:37.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's not just an overlapping of qualities,
Dialogue: 0,1:13:37.59,1:13:40.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's an ontological problem\Nand you cannot just model it
Dialogue: 0,1:13:41.09,1:13:45.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as something that happens\Nin a sequence, in a line.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:45.22,1:13:48.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's not a string.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:48.06,1:13:53.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So let me try this as a response.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:55.34,1:13:59.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the end, despite all this talk\Nabout strings and such,
Dialogue: 0,1:14:02.16,1:14:09.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's the fact that abstract objects\Nhave no contingent inherent properties
Dialogue: 0,1:14:12.34,1:14:14.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that drives the argument forward.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:14.90,1:14:21.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I refer to specific constructs\Nfrom discrete mathematics
Dialogue: 0,1:14:21.45,1:14:23.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like strings and so on,
Dialogue: 0,1:14:23.20,1:14:27.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because they're so common in the books\Nthat we read about digital objects.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:27.81,1:14:34.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But, however you conceptualize your score,\Nif it's a repeatable abstraction,
Dialogue: 0,1:14:43.57,1:14:47.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's going to be implausible\Nthat it's mutable.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:51.04,1:14:54.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is plausible because\Nwe talked about [inaudible] score,
Dialogue: 0,1:14:54.38,1:14:57.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but for the same reasons given here,
Dialogue: 0,1:14:57.50,1:15:04.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,after reflection, it becomes\Nimplausible that it's mutable.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:04.01,1:15:07.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so, the kinds of paraphrases\Nthat we use for strings
Dialogue: 0,1:15:07.95,1:15:12.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will also involve social,\Ncommunity intention.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:12.80,1:15:16.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Looks like we're shifting\Nchange to communities.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:16.47,1:15:17.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is what we're doing.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:17.83,1:15:22.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Convention, intention, all that stuff
Dialogue: 0,1:15:22.92,1:15:25.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is going to have to happen\Nfor us of course as well.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:25.50,1:15:30.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even though I don't have a snappy answer\Nfor what a score is,
Dialogue: 0,1:15:30.40,1:15:33.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm still fairly confident\Nthat whatever it is,
Dialogue: 0,1:15:33.62,1:15:38.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if it's a repeatable abstraction,\Nit will not have any inherent properties
Dialogue: 0,1:15:38.57,1:15:44.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are contingent\Nand therefore will be modifiable,
Dialogue: 0,1:15:44.32,1:15:47.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and therefore its apparent modification
Dialogue: 0,1:15:47.22,1:15:51.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will be a social construction.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:51.67,1:15:55.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A genuine social construction\Nthat's dependent upon
Dialogue: 0,1:15:55.47,1:15:58.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our intentional effort as a community.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:01.94,1:16:08.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We have to stop there, but if your brain\Nis like mine right now it's racing
Dialogue: 0,1:16:12.30,1:16:13.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a lot of different directions.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:13.68,1:16:14.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Our mind.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:15.38,1:16:19.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm sure that Allan will be\Nat the front of the room
Dialogue: 0,1:16:19.43,1:16:22.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to talk to you if you\Nwould like to talk more.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:22.32,1:16:24.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's thank him\Nfor a great digital dialogue.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:25.41,1:16:29.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(applause)