Re: [unrev-II] Augment + categories = OHS v0.1

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 17:52:02 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "[unrev-II] **Servlets for email**"

    Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Eric Armstrong wrote:
    > > * I agree with Eugene (in principle) that links should
    > > be categorizable. I have been calling that feature
    > > "typed links", but it undoubtedly makes sense to reuse
    > > the category-capability to accomplish that typing.
    > I think that you and Doug have different definitions of typed links.
    > My understanding of typed links is that the link has information
    > about the document to which it's linked. Categorizing links, on the
    > other hand, expresses information about the relationship between the
    > items that are linked.
    It appears we *do* mean different things.
    By typed/categorized links, I mean the ability to specify:
      * This link is a reference
      * This link is an inline-inclusion
      * This link is "invisible" (e.g. it is a glossary link)
        --meaning the cursor changes shape when hovering over
          the link, but the text is the same as the surrounding
      * And (possibly) this link is an "implication".
        --which gets us to the subject of relationships and how
          best to implement them.
      * This is a link to a view-controllable data
        --with the ability to specify the vew-controls

    I figure a link doesn't need to carry any information about the
    document it's linked to, since that information is already part
    of the document. (By that reasoning, the notion of "glossay term"
    could be derived from the link target, rather than being specified
    as part of the link itself. On the other hand, some generalized
    capability to define "invisible links" for other purposes would
    require link-typing.

    > > * Just to be sure, though, I think it behooves us to come
    > > with a use case that requires them. The first idea I
    > > came up with was "all design notes corresponding to this
    > > version of the system requirements" -- but that search
    > > can be satisfied using the type of the link target.
    > > Any other cases come to anyone's mind?
    > Excellent point. What about carrying out an IBIS-style discussion?
    > Don't you need categorizable links for this? For example, if I
    > post a response to an issues list, I want to be able to link that
    > response to a particular issue and categorize it as either an
    > answer or an alternative.
    What I see here is the need to categorize the *response* as an
    alternative, or argument-for, or argument-against, for example.
    If the nodes are categorized, I'm not sure that the links need
    to be (for this purpose).

    In Traction, categories were displayed in a list to the right of
    a paragraph, in light blue. (Better mechanisms might be found,
    but I found that one acceptable as a display tool for categories.)

    Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch?
    Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors.

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 17:59:36 PDT