http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqBmdZ-BNig
By David Millward, and Nick Collins
Aeroplanes can fly because their wings cause the air pressure underneath to be greater than that above, lifting them into the air.
The "libro di ricordanze" was a kind of private notebook maintained by many Florentine merchants during the Renaissance to keep their affairs in good order. The contents of these journals ranged, like so many blogs of today, from personal and family matters to discussions and chronicles of public affairs.
Older perl-5 style: the tie function:Lots to think about indeed. And he sent along a little script as an example to tinker with, which I won't post here....
http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/tie.html
this lets you tie any complex data structure into a perl scalar, array, or hash, as you wish.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perltie.html
This is great for "hiding" object-oriented interfaces in a simple, "perl-ish" way. It can wrap GDBM or Berkeley, or MySQL, or SQLite, or Hadoop...and so on.
The low-level perl GDBM_File module:
http://search.cpan.org/~dapm/perl-5.10.1/ext/GDBM_File/ GDBM_File.pm
tie and dbmopen both use this core perl module. On some mac's, I have had to Recompile perl to get GDBM_file working. You can't get it from CPAN.
The low-level perl Berkeley DB module:
http://search.cpan.org/~pmqs/BerkeleyDB-0.39/BerkeleyDB.pod
Pretty nice, but doesn't support all of the awesome Berkeley DB features, like joins. the python binding will do joins for you, at C speed. the $db->associate($secondary, \&key_callback) function lets you automatically maintain a secondary index. the DBM Filter functionality will do customized byte packing and unpacking for you transparently.
One other DBM product you might want to look at it is Tokyo Cabinet:
http://1978th.net/tokyocabinet/
It runs Mixi, the Japanese equivalent of Facebook, as I understand it, and some googling suggest that it's quite hot in the noSQL world. It's certainly faster than BerkeleyDB, and lightweight, and has nice Ruby bindings--Perl, not so hot.
Some people claim it's more stable than Berkeley. There's an impressive set of benchmarks here:
http://tokyocabinet.sourceforge.net/benchmark.pdf
This should be compared with Oracle's benchmarks:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley- db/pdf/berkeley-db-perf.pdf
which shows bulk read of 5,000,000 records/sec. "un de ces" indeed.
Berkeley has more features, Tokyo might be faster, we'd probably want to test both of them out at scale to see how they hold up. Tokyo is designed to do cloud-style partitioning and stuff.
We also might want to look at Project Voldemort, which runs LinkedIn:
http://project-voldemort.com/
This one keeps its database in-memory, and has really sophisticated protocols for distributed hash tables, load balancing, consistency, etc.
He goes on to discuss the distinction in useful detail, concludingBy the time the true direction of electron flow was discovered, the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" had already been so well established in the scientific community that no effort was made to change it, although calling electrons "positive" would make more sense in referring to "excess" charge. You see, the terms "positive" and "negative" are human inventions, and as such have no absolute meaning beyond our own conventions of language and scientific description. Franklin could have just as easily referred to a surplus of charge as "black" and a deficiency as "white," in which case scientists would speak of electrons having a "white" charge (assuming the same incorrect conjecture of charge position between wax and wool).
However, because we tend to associate the word "positive" with "surplus" and "negative" with "deficiency," the standard label for electron charge does seem backward. Because of this, many engineers decided to retain the old concept of electricity with "positive" referring to a surplus of charge, and label charge flow (current) accordingly. This became known as conventional flow notation
I sometimes wonder if it would all be much easier if we went back to the source of the confusion -- Ben Franklin's errant conjecture -- and fixed the problem there, calling electrons "positive" and protons "negative."Mystery resolved. Now, if I can only figure out how to get light bulbs out of sockets on ceiling fan/light systems without breaking them, I will be forever grateful. The vibration of the fan tends to wedge them in pretty tightly.....
Lukas C. Faulstich, Ulf Leser und Anke Lüdeling. Storing and Querying Historical Texts in a Relational Database. Informatik-Bericht Nr.176 des Instituts für Informatik der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Februar 2005Interesting to see they are using SQL to power this project.
Lukas C. Faulstich, Ulf Leser und Thorsten Vitt. Implementing a Linguistic Query Language for Historic Texts. Query Languages and Query Processing (QLQP-2006): 11th Intl. Workshop on Foundations of Models and Languages for Data and Objects (FMLDO), 2006.
The End of Digital Humanities I can't help thinking (with just a little evidence) that the age of funding for digital humanities is coming to an end. Let me clarify this. My hunch is that the period when any reasonable digital humanities project seemed neat and innovative is coming to an end and that the funders are getting tired of more tool projects. I'm guessing that we will see a shift to funding content driven projects that use digital methodologies. Thus digital humanities programs may disappear and the projects are shunted into content areas like philosophy, English literature and so on. Accompanying this is a shift to thinking of digital humanities as infrastructure that therefore isn't for research funding, but instead should be run as a service by professionals. This is the "stop reinventing wheel" argument and in some cases it is accompanied by coercive rhetoric to the effect that if you don't get on the infrastructure bandwagon and use standards then you will be left out (or not funded.) I guess I am suggesting that we could be seeing a shift in what is considered legitimate research and what is considered closed and therefore ready for infrastructure. The tool project could be on the way out as research as it is moved as a problem into the domain of support (of infrastructure.) Is this a bad thing? It certainly will be a good thing if it leads to robust and widely usable technology. But could it be a cyclical trend where today's research becomes tomorrows infrastructure to then be rediscovered later as a research problem all over.