Random vs Random v3 has a nickname: Apple.

Closing the Random trio, here is a random sample. As mentioned earlier, "Random" is often not so random. For this example, there were several events that led to the so-called "Random Apple."

• event #1 - dkos had a beta site - throw-away content was allowed
• event #2 - I had been working with software from "Lingraphica - The Aphasia Company"
• event #3 - The Lingraphica software had a simple - but powerful (in my opinion) - feature: pictures grouped into strings - complex enough to tell a story
• event #4 - The Lingraphica spokesperson said, "No" to my request to use their copyrighted illustrations
• event #5 - I wrote something about that situation and a solution: an open vocabulary in picture - and to post it on the dkos beta site
• event #6 - I posted a picture - three eggs from a dkos-furnished picture. With a lot of words
• event #7 - The eggs were ugly - and the article drizzled away
• event #8 - I joined caucus99percent, started a series essay called Midnight Mulling (something), and needed a third installment about - well what?
• event #9 - caucus99percent member mhagle wrote the essay: "Education and Dyslexia: Why So Few Get It" and I posted a reply as follows:

If the folks at "Lingraphica" would open their image files, then there would be no need for a "vocabulary in picture." A person with a story to tell would be able to use an established rich vocabulary with words or to use an established not-so-rich vocabulary with pictures.

You would think that an apple would be easy to illustrate. Well, yes and no. I've been looking for tonight's "Midnight Mulling" title. It was going to be "Random vs Random 3", but maybe "Apples" might be better. Midnight Mulling runs here at caucus99percent at - well, you can guess the rest --grin-- (EDT).

So that's one of the random things (this essay was going to be titled, "Random vs Random #3"). And note, I changed "Apples" to "Apple" and there is a joke about that wording. Too bad I can't remember the exact wording, and that particular joke requires precision wording.

"Unlike an apple" you ask?

Apples are not simple. Apple-related things are not simple. Take apple-butter. Or maybe not, if you need to diet. But so good. Yet, how to make apple-butter look as good as it tastes?

When "Midnight Mulling - GreenScreen" was being written, there was a detour about 'mini-greenscreens' that were actually white. So not really greenscreen, but the idea was close: a teeny tiny 'stage' on which a product could be posed. Hundreds of Dollars to snap a photo of a turnip. Or a serving of stewed prunes. Or an apple. Or a bowl of apple-butter. And that does not include the camera, nor the lens.

So I can understand that a photographer wants credit for making an appetizing shot of a slice of raw veal - USDA choice. But the name of the photographer emblazoned over the chop takes away the magic. At least as far as the magic of a vocabulary in picture entry.

A vocabulary - of any sort - needs the item and the symbol. If the item is an apple, and the symbol is the word, "Apple" then an entry is done. And the vocabulary maker can go on to the next item; perhaps "Artichoke."

Vocabulary in picture is more difficult. Apples can be red. Apples can be yellow. Or green. Or striped. An apple can be ripe. Perhaps one leaf attached at the stem. Even two leaves, but that's starting to look 'staged.' And what about speckles? Just one looks strange. Too many? Well, tell me, would you pick that apple?

An entry in a vocabulary in picture has a built-in adjective or adverb itself. And the maker of a vocabulary in picture entry has a job: Director - to costume, block and direct the actor - in our case, an apple.

So if a vocabulary in picture is made, it will be a big effort. Why 'big' you ask? Because it has to look simple.

And there's the issue of ownership. So if you have ideas about that, speak up.

By the way, this was going to be published last night, but in the sticks, the Internet has its moods. Especially when it rains.