Data Salon 3 - Ghent

COMPLEXITY

NOT

COMPUTATIONAL

OR

MATHEMATICAL

DTIME

EXPTIME

NTIME

NEXPTIME

NP

NC

P

NO

SIMPLER PROBLEMS

WHERE THE BRAIN SAYS

W T F

A1,A2,A3,A4

A1Enkel publicaties die in de Science Citation Index, de Social Science Citation Index en de Arts & Humanities Citation Index in Web of Science het documenttype article, letter, note, review of proceedings paper krijgen, kunnen erkend worden als A1 (z.o. definitie van A1 publicatie in vorige vraag).

Andere documenttypes, zoals book review, biographical item, editorial material, ..., krijgen geen A1 status en worden daarom door de reviewer geklasseerd als V. Indien uw publicatie toch gelijkstaat aan een volwaardig artikel (bijv. in vele gevallen van editorial material), dan kunt u in samenspraak met de uitgever van het tijdschrift waarin uw bijdrage verscheen, een vraag indienen bij Thomson Reuter om het documenttype om te zetten naar article of review.

ONLY 6 CLICKS TO FULL TEXT

WTF

STANDARDS

TOOLBOX

Z39.50

Z39.88

UTF-8

XML-SCHEMA

EAD

XSLT Handl

e

SSSOAPRDF/XML

ISAAD

GRRRRRDLCQL

MARC21

METS

FRBRUnicode

DTD

XML

SPARQLOWL

CSS

LOVE FOR BOOLEANS

if (!$loginAccount or (($userRole eq 'reviewer') and !$loginAccount->{departmentRights}) or

($userRole eq 'localAdmin' and !$loginAccount->{isLocalAdmin}) or

(($userRole eq 'superAdmin') and !$loginAccount->{isSuperAdminAccount})) {

…

}

WARNING: REAL CODE

LICENCED /PUBLIC DOMAIN

DIGITAL PRESERVATIO

N

WTF

Law of conservation of trouble?

Origin in Trade-Off’s?• Interpretable (conceptual distance): humans ->

machines• Processing (time, production): slow -> fast• Extensible: namespaces -> bigger model• Community: my group -> your group• Cost of production: $$ -> $$$$• Security• Application Domain: generic (e.g. HTML) -> data

models• Tradition: If it ain’t broke..• Law• Future promises: If I do this then I will …• Compatibility: forwards -> backwards

OR

INCOMPLETE INFORMATIO

N?

TIME/CONTEXT?

At this moment in time we had only access to (…)

Actors aren’t RATIONAL?

Feature Creep Fallacies of

Argumentation

Wrong Business Model

Bricolage

Not Invented here

Community Pressure?

Funding

LESS = MORE

WORSE = BETTER

Richard Gabriel - 1989

On SimplicityThe design must be simple, both in implementation and interface.

Better: simpler implementation

than: simpler interface


On CorrectnessThe design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.Better: simpler design

than:correct design


On ConsistencyConsistency can be sacrificed for simplicity

Better: consistency sacrificed in some cases for simplicity

than: design must be consistent in all aspects


On CompletenessCompleteness can be sacrificed in favor of any other quality

Better:simplicity may overrule

completeness

than: simplicity is not allowed to reduce completeness

SIMPLICITY produces successful softwareSIMPLICITY takes much less time and

effort to produce and adapt

SIMPLICITY spreads much rapidly, long before

any complete, correct, constitent programs sees

the market

THANKS :-)

PATRICK HOCHSTENBACH – GHENT UNIVERSITY LIBRARYhttp://lib.ugent.be

DATASALON-3 OCT 2009GENT

Technology

Data Salon 3 - Ghent