Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal

From: Alex Shapiro (
Date: Wed Sep 12 2001 - 22:26:43 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal"

    At 09:52 PM 9/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
    >At 08:54 PM 9/12/2001 -0400, you wrote:
    > ><snippage/>
    > >My vision of this one, is that only the most relevant points are actually
    > >shown as part of the graph. New responses, and ones that are not deemed
    > >valuable, can be accessed from a drop down list at every node. It is also
    > >at this point where readers can vote to transform a message the is
    > >currently only accessible in this way, into a node rather then a menu
    > option.
    >So, who gets to play God and decide what is relevant and what is not? How
    >is the "value deeming" process performed?
    >In the fully-facilitated process, it would seem that there are issues
    >related to the facilitator not interfering with the creative process while,
    >at the same time, guiding the process.

    Hey Mr. Snippage, you cut this part out of my prior post:

    I was thinking more of ratings based on relevance to a particular
    subject. Or truth. Say non-obvious interesting facts would be highly
    rated, while obvious or uninteresting statements would get a low
    rating. ********The 'who' that the facts are interesting to, would be the
    participants in the forum, with the goal being to come up with a single,
    objective (within the group) opinion.*********


    It's a democratic process, right? No one is playing god.

    > >The ultimate goal as I see it is the creation of a "Collaborative
    > >Rewritable Document Editor".
    > >
    > >We've got code reuse, but not text reuse. So much time is wasted by
    > >scientists and journalists all over the place on simply rewriting what has
    > >been said before them. Wouldn't it be nice if people were able to settle
    > >on an accepted description of a certain issue, and then refer back to it,
    > >rather then rewriting the material. This would create symbolism on a
    > >higher lever then just words. Paragraphs would come to be reusable
    > >tokens. If someone thinks that they could say it better, then they could
    > >try, and then people could vote on which version they like. Ok, I have
    > >more to say on this issue, but I need time to gather my thoughts. Maybe if
    > >someone disagrees, it would help me to form a response.
    > >
    > >--Alex
    >And, now you're getting awfully close to the Xanalogical Structure of Ted
    >Nelson, where everything is one huge string and you can slide a window
    >along that string and call that window whatever you want -- e.g. a
    >paragraph. It's available to all who want it.
    >No disagreement here, however.

    I hope I am not getting close to any such notions. At least if this: is what you mean. Well, maybe the world
    isn't ready yet for my grand vision of the future. That's why I'll just
    keep working on the practical present.


    ------------------------ 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." Get it Now!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Sep 12 2001 - 22:07:02 PDT