Ciao Tony Fascinating comments (for me at least), thanks!
Your bullet points are interesting for all being (what I would call) "technical", apart from "analysis & synthesis". Its interesting how the word "semantic" has expanded. Though I was totally non-plused when I first encountered the term "semantic markup"... *WTF is that?* In time I kinda got it. It leads to better HTML docs among other things. In my post I was kinda riffing more about chunking of "end-text" content, not mechanism. Of course, any chunking is mediated by the medium/mechanism you are using. But the medium is not (I'm anti-McLuan) the message exactly. The human user always (at the moment) retains a Vorple Sword (thank god). To try illustrate what I meant about semantics being "context dependent" ... say I made a TW of 4,000 Tiddlers quoting Perry Mason TV series ... that would be for the purpose of illuminating "how common tropes of TV are written." Does my computer comprehend that or see it as semantically valid? This bringing of "meaning for" to the TW tech seems to be a central issue where its flex gets very interesting--IF you understand it. Something like that Best wishes Josiah On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 04:16:55 UTC+1, TonyM wrote: > > Josiah, > > Riffing on from what you said, here is a personal reflection: > > A life in IT has taught me many things, once we become more expert at > something, some of the basics become internalised, they take on an > intuitive understanding rather than needing the application of intellectual > rules, ie their cognitive load is reduced. The use of system 1 not System > 2 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow) one of my > favourite books this decade. > > What I find with TiddlyWiki, it is somewhat unstructured and thus very > flexible, its features allows one to make a mess as much as it allows one > to exercise the skills and knowledge one has acquired. I seem to have no > difficulty naming tiddlers and never seem to have problems renaming them > because I rarely if ever have any dependencies on tiddler names, or where I > do there is never a reason to rename them, nor do I seem to have any > difficulties intuitively knowing exactly when to divide the content in > anyway, that is, I seem to have no difficulty in understanding a *SU > (Semantic Unit) in TW writing (or computing writing In General, for that > matter)*? The problem is this is already in my system 1 and am often > finding myself trying to reverse engineer this knowledge, so I can guide > others towards using the same methods and rules. Sometimes I want to > understand what underlies my intuition, to build a conceptual model, and > sometimes extend its power. > > I would speculate however my grasp of Semantic Units is based on the > lessons of the following disciplines > > - Structured software design and programming > - Object oriented design > - Analysis and Synthesis > - Database design and "normalisation" > - Alternate database models (Structured, Network, Relational etc...) > - Modularity and blackbox design principals > > TiddlyWiki allows the democratisation of knowledge and application of > algorithms commonly found in the above. But there are few rules. > > I think we may need to obtain or construct a new discipline, that draws on > the above disciplines (and others) selectively, such that we can pass to > those seeking to apply knowledge and algorithms on top of our "non-linear > personal web notebook" or our "non-linear platform". > > My use of TiddlyWiki continues to evolve rapidly, but I believe this is in > part due to my understanding of the underlying concepts and patterns > acquired in a life as a Information Technology professional. The question > is how can we maximise what others, without such experience can do? or the > exchange of such concepts between those with the expertise to others with > similar needs. > > Regards > Tony > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:43:01 AM UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> One of the things that interests me a lot that the talk raised a bit--and >> which no one seems to know how to answer is ... :-) >> >> - WHAT exactly is an SU (Semantic Unit) in TW writing (or computing >> writing In General, for that matter)? >> >> There is a kind of rule of thumb "its maybe a paragraph"? But, of course >> that won't quite work for the one-sentence brevity of a Nietzsche. >> >> Its obviously highly context dependent. And I doubt much of that context >> lives on the computer itself. >> >> The idea in TW towards writing "the shortest semantic whole possible" >> (the word "fragment" here that is thrown around has muddied waters; they >> are not fragments so much as whole-parts-of-wholes) allows for later >> re-combinations to form more complex semantics. >> >> However, I think its bit of an, ultimately, moot and mute point, in the >> sense that human meaning is often an interaction with technologies of >> expression themselves (though no where ever fully defined by them). So its >> an area of intuited understanding, not formal logic? On the other hand, >> who's offering the horse which water? >> >> Josiah >> >> On Monday, 10 December 2018 12:49:14 UTC+1, PMario wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here's the video: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv1UfLPK7_Q&index=9&list=PLvL2NEhYV4ZtWFBNOrApXaIoCTtj-yk7Y >>> >>> have fun! >>> mario >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/293fd2d5-6d67-4b6c-a364-bd3114077a64%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
