Principles of Distributed Representation
Stephen Downes National Research Council Canada August 9, 2005
Is this a talk about metadata?
Not really. The changing nature of knowledge Implications for educators Taking networks seriously Distributed representation
What we thought knowledge was like
Mental states - entities in the brain corresponding to Paris is the capital of France Brain writing these entities have syntactic properties (Chomsky) and semantic properties (Fodor)
The information-theoretic view
Communication consists in getting a bit of knowledge P from point A to point B
In learning, the concept of transactional distance (Moore) is based on this idea
Pedagogy therefore consists in improved communication and interaction
Transactional distance
the physical separation that leads to a psychological and communications gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner
Moore http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol5_3.htm
In effect
Knowledge is like sentences (RDF anyone?) Vocabulary is unambiguous; meaning is fixed and universally understood Description (and for that matter, truth) does not vary from person to person (a horse is a horse (of course, of course))
But none of this is true, cant be true
If it were true, context would have no effect on truth or meaning
But context-sensitivity is everywhere
Wittgenstein (meaning), Quine (observation), van Fraassen (explanation), Hanson (causation), Lakoff (categorization), Stalnaker and Lewis (modality)
What we know depends on our point of view
(Note that this does not entail relativism)
All we have is our point of view
Language is, at best, an approximation of knowledge, and at worst, a parody of it
Implications
First, knowledge is sub-symbolic That is, mere possession of the words is not the same as knowledge The words make sense only when applied in context
Implications
Second, knowledge is distributed That is, there is no specific entity that constitutes, say, the belief that Paris is the capital of France There is no given person that possesses this knowledge (who would that person even be?)
Implications
Third, knowledge is interconnected That is, the knowledge that Paris is the capital of France is actually a part of the knowledge that countries have capitals and even ducks are animals Cf.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1517186,00.html
Implications
Fourth, knowledge is personal Your belief that Paris is the capital of France is quite literally different from my belief Think, for example, about the word Paris would your neighbour have exactly the same thoughts? Why not?
Implications
Fifth, knowledge is emergent The knowledge that Paris is the capital of France (in its pure, abstract form) is not contained in any given mind, but emerges as a result of connections between them Emergence is not a causal phenomenon but rather a perceptual one we have to recognize it
The wisdom of crowds
Each of us has a piece of the puzzle We dont acquire this piece, we create it Creation is a process of acquisition, remixing, repurposing, feeding forward
Knowledge is the interplay between our bit of the network and other bits of the network
Hence (for example)
Thomas Kuhn learning a science is learning how to solve the problems at the end of the chapter Etienne Wenger learning as participation in a community of practice
Properties of successful networks
Charles Vest three key attributes:
Diversity (many objectives) Interwoven (many activities) Open (many minds)
Charles M. Vest, SAC, August 8, 2005
http://jade.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/cdb/2005/08/08/opencourseware-sac2005
Diversity
The idea of making everything the same anything the same is fundamentally misguided
Interwoven
The idea that our different activities are distinct is fundamentally misguided
Open
The idea that we can store knowledge in closed repositories is fundamentally misguided
But what about metadata?
These properties are not merely properties of universities
After all, the basic unit of knowledge isnt the university
It is well, its many things:
Connections in networks
A diversity of entities, each acting autonomously, connected in an open network
Resource Profiles
Major features:
Different types of metadata (microformats)
diversity
The information is distributed
Any given perspective is aggregated
open
interwoven
LOM Microformats
The nature of LOM should vary according to the resource
For example, technical metadata
use audio elements (eg., bitrate) for audio
use video elements (eg framerate) for video
Types of Metadata Entities
LOM needs to take its place among a wide range of metadata types
Examples:
Personal metadata, eg., FOAF
Rights Metadata, eg. ODRL
Events, organizations, publications, more
Distributed Resource Descriptions
Information not only on a persons c.v., but in school transcripts, police records, credit bureau, phone book, etc A prospective employer is interested in a very different profile than a prospective date
Your metadata environment
Again, think about a persons metadata It includes pointers to external metadata about:
Your property (which may cease one day to be associated with you)
Your pets (which you may give away)
Your car (which you may sell)
Metadata Referencing
The metadata about a given resource is not stored in a single file
References to external entities (authors, licenses) are created by pointers
In RSS the rel data entity (and you can find them in web pages too)
Principles of distributed metadata
Metadata for a given entity should never be stored in more than one place (still allow mirrors, caching, etc) Metadata for a given entity should not contain metadata for a second entity
Not Just Metadata
The concept also applies to learning resources themselves anybody can produce resources, anyone can use them It also applies to applications a learning environment is not one application, but many applications Small pieces, loosely joined
The web is changing
Web 2.0 not just a slogan A shift from the idea of the web as medium to the idea of the web as platform This just is a shift from the idea of the web as communication (information theory) to the idea of the web as network (or environment pick your metaphor)
E-Learning 2.0
Learning as a network phenomenon
Web of user-generated content (eg. Wikipedia) Social networks and communities (entails a genuinely portable (and owned) identity Networks of interactions (aggregate, remix, repurpose, feed forward) syndication The personal learning centre
Microformats on the web
Specialized formats for particular applications Can be embedded in, say, web pages or XML metadata, harvested and indexed Are niche-driven, application-specific
Eg. XFN, hcalendar, hcard, rel tags, rel license, lists and outlines, more
http://microformats.org/
Web 2.0 Checklist
Structured microcontent Data outside, not local (feeds galore) Web APIs (poor mans web services) Single identity http://www.downes.ca/idme.htm User generated, user-managed
http://www.sivas.com/aleene/microcontent/index.php?id=P2205
What we need
We need a system that is optimized toward slotting in new pieces as they become available, not as an after-thought or an addon, but as a fundamental characteristic of the system.
Michael Feldstein, August 7, 2005
http://mfeldstein.com/index.php/the_long_tail_of_learning_applications/
Takeaway
Charles Vest talked about a meta-university This (if I may be so audacious) is the information architecture of the meta-university The key is not large, integrated systems, but rather, small, flexible bits that can be connected This applies to metadata too
LOM will be rewritten
or maybe, bypassed entirely Instead of a single standard, will be a set of microformats Will link to other types of metadata describing authors, resources, rights, etc.
http://www.downes.ca
