Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal

From: Alex Shapiro (
Date: Thu Sep 13 2001 - 17:57:42 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "Re: OFFTOPIC:Re: [unrev-II] Fwd: Re: [PORT-L] Comments On Terrorist Attacks"

    At 03:10 PM 9/13/01 -0700, Eric Armstrong wrote:
    > Another, applicable in hierarchical settings, is to what
    >structures eventually did -- show additional detail while retaining
    >In a graph structure that means expanding:
    > A
    > +--+
    > | |
    > +--+
    > A
    > +----------------+
    > | B C |
    > | +--+ +--+ |
    > | | |-->| | |
    > | +--+ +--+ |
    > +----------------+
    >At that point, it will be possible to browse hierarchical graph
    >(On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that the amount of text
    >necessary for a useful discussion can be usefully represented with any
    >graphing mechanism.)

    Which is really the same as:
      A to / \
              / \

    This (with a bunch of complications) is the way that I intend to initially
    implement locality. My idea is to initially implement locality browsing
    for just associative relationships. As far as hierarchies go, a much
    better approach, can be gathered from this
    picture: and this applet:

    Otherwise, why can't a graph contain the right amount of text necessary for
    a useful discussion.

    Think of the vertical list of email subjects that you get when looking at
    your email, or a yahoo group. This could certainly be represented as a
    graph. Especially since the number of messages that you would actually be
    interested in referring to, is around 20 or so. (Don't criticize this right
    away, it might be vague, but I know what I mean, and can explain).

    Now I am not suggesting that text actually be written in graph
    form. Nothing so far out as saying that each word should have a node to
    itself. No, I am proposing something more along the lines of viewing the
    email in a separate window, sort of like TheBrain. (Have you used this
    interface by the way, or just glanced at it?)

    Finally, to make the discussion more granular then one email per node,
    purple-numbers, or some other way of tagging each paragraph in an email,
    could be added. Then, summaries, or node names, could be created for each
    part of the email, and a special graphical notation could be derived to
    show the email and its components as some sort of star tree (i.e. a root
    with a bunch of leaves).

    So there. I don't know. All this seems very practical and grounded to me.


    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Get VeriSign's FREE GUIDE: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Learn about using SSL for serious online security. Click Here!

    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 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 20:17:47 PDT