P-2-19-19-1

Jean-François Lyotard
The Differend

Cautionaries

Cautionaries are simply edits to the original content for the purposes of improving the usability and clarity of the informatic design.  Edits should focus on identifying the framework of the original content in its entirety, including redundant messages of cultural or legal significance.  The following edits were made to the content to improve the framework:

  1. Words were stemmed.
  2. Stop Words were used.
  • The Stop Word List
  • The Reasoning Behind the Selection - These words are of high frequency, non-unique generality.  They are simply removed to clarify the content, of a more unique terminology, during the analytic stage of modeling.  There are other words that could be included or excluded, as the method of removal isn’t intended to be exact.  However, the terms should be non-unique, of high frequency, and fully disclosed to users of the informatic model.  

Specific Cautionaries

The following cautionaries are specific to the Lyotard - Differend: 
  • There were a large variety of numbers and number-letter combinations that marked news sections. All numbers, letter-number combinations not constituting words or abbreviations were removed after the analytic modeling stage.  These combinations were removed to improve the usability and clarity of the content being modeled informatically.
  • No words were removed, other than what is listed on the Stop Word list.  These words were removed only for the framing and analytic stages.  Words are returned during the network and layering stages of modeling. 

More Specifics on Edits
  • OCR conversion, image to text conversion, was used to convern an image pdf of a physical book.
  • All numbers, including dates such as 2007 were removed.  
  • All words, including words split during the OCR conversion process were not removed, such as con tent, or help less.  That is, no words or letter combinations representing or potentially representing content were removed.  
  • 227 “Fi” conversions: <U+FB01>rst, de<U+FB01>nite, identi<U+FB01>able, scienti<U+FB01>, <U+FB01>nal
  • 44 “Fl” conversions: con<U+FB02>icting, re<U+FB02>ection, re<U+FB02>ective, <U+FB02>eeting, <U+FB02>owers 
  • There were a series of i + # combinations within the corpus, cleaned.  For example, i9s4, i90, i81a, i65, ia97, I78, I96
  • UTF-8 conversions, such as “?” for ' or other symbols unknown in the conversion process were corrected, so for example deportee�s becomes deportee's, phrase�s becomes phrase's, won�t becomes won't
  • roman numerals, and variable designations, such as x's, or xi (in reference to numer not a person), were removed. 
Additional Notes

  • There are various split words or this text, which will distort the model.  That is, when a word is split, such as helpless, then the relationships of words connect to helpless, will not reflect that relationship.  There are various ways to manipulate the corpus to minimize split words.  However, from experience, I choose not to do this, as such manipulations made to unstructured text cannot be reasonably tracked.  That is the results can omit information or generate new conversion errors that diminish the level of certainty that the content of the information remains in the model.  
  • The model is designed to manage these errors, so viewers can note, for example, if there are nodes “help,” “less,” and “helpless” and note with the cautionary record that the connections between these words will be distorted, as such words during this conversion were split.  However, the model itself will remain within the scope of the work.  Even as one reads the book that has been modeled, one will be able to note of this for themselves.  That is, the framing will still remain very much useful for understanding how the author is thinking and organizing their ideas, for disseminating the knowledge more effectively and efficiently.  
  • With that said, I feel the need to reiterate, the distortion from split words and the need for edits with this particular work is exceptional, which is fully disclosed in the model.  The methods of modeling are not to anecdotally perfect or polish, but rather, deliver the generalizable framework that is representative of this work.  I could make further edits, however, for professional works, I take a conservative approach to edits, and avoid any changes to the content, even if corrective, in order to encourage the transparency of information, free from anecdotal manipulations that could polish the information not on a systematic and rational basis, but rather, on an irrational basis of one's personal desires. For public works, having a strict process and procedure that promotes transparency, of a democratic order, must take precedence over the superficial measures of presentation.  In the future, I do hope to access a publication of this text that is friendlier to conversion, but for now, this model will suffice, as one can note for themselves that the framework still aligns well with the organization of the ideas.