[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Email and shared space (was Wiki experiences?)

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote:    (01)

> I think that hits the nail on the head. The issue of whether we're looking
> at an email or a document repository should effectively go away. Our
> authoring/browsing/referencing/messaging environment should consist
> of one seamless, integrated whole.    (02)

I think this would be lovely but several things make me nervous which
are only tangentially related to this thread:    (03)

- "Suites" almost always suck. If there is to be an environment, the
  best environment, to me, would be tools that can intergrate but
  don't have to.
- This list has an enormous capacity for taking neat ideas and them
  clubbing them to death with talk of requirements, standards, and
  rules. I agree that system standards are crucial, and that
  communication pathways must be formalized, however formalizing
  communication itself runs contrary to what I think of as the goal:
  somewhere to grow diverse knowledge. Whenever we start talking about
  IBIS or Concept Graphs or similar things, I start to tune out. Those
  are good systems for well defined domains, but unless I'm
  misunderstanding the many meanings of Open in OHS, defined domains
  is not really the point.    (04)

  Yes, I know, training is a crucial part of the Augmentation picture
  and I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I think that if people,
  real people, are to be able to use these tools, their trainng should
  be in the use of the tools, not in how to think.    (05)

That said, I've got some more positive comments as well. I think Eric
has captured what a system ought to or could do very nicely.    (06)

> What I'm visualizing at the moment is xhtml-based. That gives all of the
> necessary structure, with the ability to add purple numbers as id tags,
> as Murray has done for a while.
> I see a document sitting in the repository, and people "responding" to
> parts of it, where the responses are tagged with an attribute that labels
> them as "annotation", if they are not direct revisions to the document.    (07)

Your ideas inspire two view in my head. One is of something not that
unlike a full featured IMAP client and server, with some adaptions for
annotation. I guess this is what WebDAV is/was designed to accomplish.
Is there anyone here who is familiar wiht WebDAV and may the
Subversion project. I've lost touch with that stuff.    (08)

The other is of a wiki that's extended to authenticate, do versioning,
makes extensive use of personalized style sheets, has some kind of
purple numbering system that takes into account versions, allows email
based edits, and sends email updates to people who have registered for
particular threads.    (09)

In fact, now that I write that out, a wiki like thing that represents
email threads as building wiki documents might be interesting. I think
it is possible to represent threading in CVS by using branches. Would
it be possible to make an email archive out of a wiki sort of thing?    (010)

> [Implied requirements:
>    --an author list for the document
>    --any responser not on the list automatically generates an annotation
>    --a response to an annotation is automatically an annotation
>    --an author has to choose whether an added note is a document
>      modification or an annotation (or perhaps have different authoring
>      modes -- multiple interface options here)    (011)

This seems a lot like Lucid Fried Eggs. Not identical, just related. I
think LFE is really cool, but the reason I don't use it is because it
isn't in my mail box. Does that make me an antique or email good and
the web a pain in the butt?    (012)

> I see a "document repository" that is, in essence, a separate folder,
> which allows conclusions reached in the message folders to be
> "hoisted" to a position of prominence. Back links from the hoisted
> versions (copies? references?) then allow recovery of the entire
> discussion that led to the conclusions.    (013)

I think hoisting is a crucial feature that is going to be a large
challenge because it will be difficult to automate, so someone is
going to need to do it.    (014)

> I see the option of "registering interest" in particular documents, so that
> changes and additions cause their headings to be highlighted, as in the
> folder hierarchy for email.
> I see additional categories added as attributes to the document and
> message elements, so they can be searched in intelligent ways.    (015)

Who do you see doing this adding? Anyone? How do you deal with crap?
Wiki works, so I guess this would too.    (016)

Is there an OHS goal statement of some kind? Could it be linked to the
footer of mail messages sent out to the list?    (017)

Chris Dent  <cdent@burningchrome.com>  http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/    (018)