On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: (01)
> I had coffee with Dorai today, and was inspired to write down an idea
> that I've been toying with for a while. It's for a Wiki that
> autolinks pages based on an ontology rather than on WikiWords or
> FreeLinks. My notes are at:
>
> http://www.eekim.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MarkupFreeAutoLinkingWiki (02)
Thanks for the nod to warp. (03)
What I was going for with warp was a fairly undirected emergence:
I wanted a network of strange associations to be revealed. See
this description of a traverse across my brain: (04)
http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/mt/archives/000226.html#nid1YK (05)
I've found WikiWords work a bit better with group settings or
PIM/PKM uses because the WikiWord constrains things a bit.
CollaborationTools is an instantiation of the concept
"collaboration tools" that is at least somewhat local to the
current setting. It marks a bit of jargon that is flavored to the
user or community of users. Think ThinkOutLoud versus "think out
loud". See this blog entry for a bit of context. (06)
http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/mt/archives/000210.html#nidMR (07)
However this doesn't address the sort of pre-loaded nature of
having predefined terms causing linking, which is really the crux
of the biscuit. I think this is a huge (but not bad) departure
from wiki style that would change the usage patterns of the
system greatly. (08)
For example, when creating a wiki page now I tend to leave behind
WikiWords as reminders of "fill in this notion later". As John
has mentioned several times, one of PurpleWiki's problems is
there no quick way to access a list of undefined wikiwords that
are present in the system. If such a thing did exist, a group
would have a list of things they meant to think about but didn't
have a chance to just yet. (09)
In an ontology oriented wiki-thing, links would only exist
because someone had decided to DEFINE A CONCEPT. I shout to
indicate the specialness of the event. I think it would make
people nervous and reluctant. (010)
So, where I'm headed is that while I think such a tool would be
excellent for highly motivated people with a strong task in mind,
it suffers from the same problem of so many good ideas: it might
make demands on folk and we've shown many times that unless both
the goals and tasks are strongly defined, people won't step up
with structured and structuring tools. (011)
There does seem to be some evidence, though, that people will
step up with tools that allow a bit more play (like a "normal"
wiki). (012)
--
Chris Dent cdent@blueoxen.org
AIM: sleepleft http://burningchrome.com/~cdent/mt
It's faith all the way down. We choose reason. (013)
--
This message is archived at: (014)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=Pine.OSX.4.53.0408081054320.5357@nitrous.local (015)
|