Simon Pockley wrote:
>
> Simon Cox (Thu Jul 23) wrote:
>
> >The parsimony principle argues against adding types willy-nilly.
>
> Conceded, but the cultural and symbolic importance of the moving image in the
> 20th century leads me to argue for a distiction to be made between moving (time
> based) images and still (timeless) graphics.
Simon - I think we should examine this more fully.
A concern of mine is that the boundary between
moving and still images is not a very firm or
necessarily useful one. Certainly not as distinctive
as the boundary between image and text, for example.
Most moving images are realised as sequences (collections?)
of stills, for example, a mechanism which is even more
clear in the digital realm (mpeg == concatenation of jpegs, etc).
The movement+sound aspect gives me more pause,
but I think the multi-media case here is supported
by noting that in all the formats I know about (not many!)
the sound-track and visuals are separable, and are often
merely synchronised rather than fully entangled.
Perhaps "moving vs. still" is more about *sub*-Types than Types -
to be dealt with better in "structured" DC?
(PS - re-reading my "willy-nilly" statement above
it comes across more flippant than was intended.)
--
__________________________________________________
Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]
http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/SimonCox/
|