You're welcome, I'm sure. I'm lucky enough to have a decent size yard and I spend a lot of time trying to see things from the perspective of the animal and plant life that inhabits it. A lot of our information problems (imho) come from too much detail of specificity at the wrong scale. You don't look at a tree as a collection of leaves, or draw one by cataloguing all their sizes. Likewise a tree rarely grows as a pure function of its DNA-encoded phyllotaxis patterns, but rather a combination of those and the variations of its environment - soil composition,w ater, other roots, helper fungi, sunlight, prevailing winds, and local animal life. It's truly amazing to watch the interactions between different plants and trees over a period of years.

I think because we're so used being able to catalog, measure, categorize and sort our various files and directory structures, manipulate them programmatically, have our browsers or operating systems identify a particular leaf by reference or just by searching for some of the micro-structure within it (usually words) etc. etc. we tend to overlook the organicess of how a data collection grows and opt instead of producing analytics measuring it. It'd be like trying to describe a tree with tables of vector statistics about the angle and length of branch sections - it's valid in certain ways, but doesn't give you a good sense of the tree's shape or structure. It's as if we've developed a sort of techno-myopia towards the shape of our own output and activities, and approach everything by dissecting it into slices and then ranking them by various criteria.