Re: Common Objects

Mark Waks ([email protected])
Tue, 30 May 95 13:56:20 EDT


A couple of comments on John's posting:
>No repository or CDROM could possibly contain "enough" models of
>"common objects" (real and imaginary, I presume).

Of course not. But a smartish Browser, given the right information,
could deduce which objects were being most commonly fetched, and make
some sensible empirical decisions about which ones are worth storing
locally. This is worth *far* more than *any* CD-ROM could be, since
it's based on the realities of usage instead of just theory, but it
requires some way of understanding which objects are being commonly
used, which is the whole point.

> And where's the
>originality in scenes made up of the same 3D models?

You've *got* to be kidding. Where's the originality in most home pages
-- after all, they're mostly made of up the same words?

Originality takes many forms. The beauty of the Web is that it
pushes *structural* originality to the fore. Enormous amounts of
information is encoded in *arrangement*, not just in the
components.

I could make a house *entirely* out of common objects, not designing a
single one myself (indeed, I might do so), and still have enormous
amounts of useful information in that house, due to the arrangement,
links, and mnemonics encoded in the way it's laid out. And by using
the same shapes, but changing the behavioural code (another
possibility) I could create an *enormously* original space.

I'm sorry, but the very fact that you can ask that question indicates
to me that you are *way* too wrapped up in the object-design side of
things. It's important, but it is by *no* stretch of the imagination
the be-all and end-all of what we're creating here...

Mark's already made most of the other comments that needed to be made...

-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

"God is not dead. He's just taking a nap."