I have a confession to make.
I have a login password for Bernard's web site. I have yet to use
it. Why? Because I am lazy. It is far easier to hit NewMessage in Eudora
and type "unrev" and then ship off some gem, than it is to fire up my
browser, type in enough of a url to get the browser to remember where I
want to go, then log in, then navigate to some appropriate page, then offer
up some gem. Eric Armstrong has been right all along: email is easier.
But, email is far less useful in a couple of senses: it's not well
organized (in contrast to a well-designed web site as is Bernard's), and it
tends to allow rambling, which, I think, calls for some structure, as for
example IBIS provides. But then, try to put IBIS threads into email and
you lose the structure of the discussion; web sites are better for
that. So, I conclude, email is easier and for those of us of the lazy
persuasion, better. But, I also conclude that, for purposes of logical
coherence in discussion and knowledge space, web sites, particularly those
designed as knowledge portals like Bernards, are better. Go figure.
What would I like to see come out of this? How about something along the
lines of a Wiki in the sense that folks can easily jump in and add comments
to some web page, but, at the same time, those comments are framed into an
email to be shipped off to some favored email list. Oh gads! What a
kluge. How about a Wiki that accepts emails and knows how to install
them? Probably another kluge. Oh my! How 'bout banning email! What a
Speaking of gems, Alex's post about Frank van Harmelen is a gem. I was not
aware of his work. I am now.
And, I stand behind all those things I said earlier on the topicmapmail list.
Were I to conjure a summary of this response, it would be:
What we need is a knowledge portal that is as convenient as email, and as
powerful as a web site.
If anyone wants to start a thread here about the IBIS question: How to
build a convenient, powerful knowledge portal?, have at it. I'd suggest
using the IBIS ontology (ala Jeff Conklin): questions can be followed by
IDEAs or other QUESTIONs that refine the previous question. IDEAs can be
followed by IDEAs that specialize the previous IDEA, by QUESTIONs that
refine the IDEA, by PRO and by CON arguments, and in the Nexist variant, by
COMMENTs which offer up neutral observations of one sort or another.
At 11:09 AM 9/8/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Alex, Jack and all
>Speaking of Semantic Community Web ...
>Jack and other people on this forum keep feeding the list with very relevant
>This feeding is indeed one of my main sources to augment the semantopic data
>For those who wouldn't know yet about it, see www.universimmedia.com
>For example, DAML and Frank van Hermelen have been included for a while
>I've not included yet Alex and TouchGraph, but will do it ASAP. I've played
>with TouchGraph and really like it!
>One thing I wonder is why people there would not like to add direcly their
>resources to this data base, since semantopic is an open collaborative
>project, and in fact, it's thought from the beginning to be kind of Semantic
>Community Web Index (if not Portal)
>A resource included in the semantopic map is linked to relative resources,
>and makes much more sense there than simply included in a message soon
>buried deep in a forum archives if you did not bookmark properly!
>Getting an user login is easy. Just contact me. Before the end of the month,
>we'll have a new user interface, much more friendly and easy to use. Hope
>that will help collaborators to step in.
>About below quotation by Jack. I feel completely tuned with the notion
>developed by many people lately that we have a kind of equivalence "web
>community" <=> "collaborative ontology".
>That reminds me, Jack, the "famous" debate where we met one year ago on the
>topicmap mailing list.
>following thread. Still relevant IMO.
>And from recent exchanges here and there, I would add now "semantic web" to
>that equivalence list. Meaning there will be as many "semantic webs" as "web
>communities" and matching "collaborative ontologies". Of course communities
>and ontologies overlap, since every one of us belongs to many communities
>(familial, regional, professional, technical, business, market, cultural,
>interest, ... )
>Bottom line :
>Binding separately developed but overlapping ontologies will need
>non-ambiguous stable binding points. Topic Maps people call that Published
>Subject Indicators. In the frame of new TopicMaps.Org organization in OASIS,
>a Technical Committee on Published Subjects is presently in the process of
>approval. As soon as all that is official (should be one or two weeks from
>now), I'll make an announcement here.
>You can see the draft charter for this committee at
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your Web
site for Business" and learn all about serious security. Get it Now!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 08:19:20 PDT