Morning of Wednesday, June 3, 1998; 10:30 am:
I have the impression that everyone addresses the issues from different angles. We should break our discussion into two things.
When we are having our discussion, we must keep in mind what perspective we are coming from, i.e., we should say, "I am addressing this issue from this perspective".
What about separate things into the following two categories:
For instance, statistics doesnāt have a grammar.
Some people feel that there is grammar is in statistics.
Would the taxonomy be different in the textual realm than in is in the statistical realm?
Where would you put speech? Is it analog or is it digital?
Iād put it in text.
Those categories and that structure are excellent. I think that we should define the boundaries rather that the definitions. It is a much more useful exercise.
Where would you put yours, Bill?
There are some aspects of this dichotomy that are irrelevant. There are techniques that could be used for both.
But we are not talking about data, we are talking about analysis. The notion that you have to fit everything into a bin is problematic, and you donāt have to.
Thatās why I asked Bill the question.
I like the notion of getting the idea of visualisation more into the head. Getting your data so people can manipulate it in their head.
You are still trying to get it to the point where people can understand it and manipulate it.