Joe Brilliant stuff! Most interesting.
One thought I had was you maybe inclined to the biggest picture, but at specific TW level harmonisation of tags it may be a more delimited issue involving less stress? :-) The RDF triangulation looks good. But how far would I get? ... human - male - born 19xx - London - Joe Armstrong With a cross-cut I see you are (not yet a transvestite :-) And you went to my university, so colleague. But were you in my excellent school (LSE)? Back to TW ... What users of TW do with tags in their wiki is not the same as a networked service would be. Why? because most of it happens in PRIVATE. And they use tags for a several different reasons. For instance, some tags are used to aid generative ORGANISATION, rather than for semantic marking. And Special RESERVED tags are used to invoke system functions. In other words Tags in TW serve several functions that can be orthogonal to each other. TBH I need better grasp what aspect of tagging in TW you want to address. Something like that. Just early comments Josiah On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 19:03:30 UTC+1, Joe Armstrong wrote: > > Thinking out loud here ... > > I've been thinking more about tags. One problem is that tags are rather > vague and are written in different human languages. > > One way out of this might be to adopt the wikidata word definitions. For > example, I am, unambiguously > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1691321 > > There are actually several Joe Armstrong's (for example, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q712592) > > These Q numbers uniquely define subjects and objects. Verbs (or > predicates) are given by P numbers > so https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178 means "the organisation or > person who developed the item. > > in RDF speak the triple > > {https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1144644, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17031730} > > (BTW I recommend clicking on these links and playing around - there's lots > of interesting > data in RDF tuples and the above links are a good place to start looking) > > Means "TiddlyWiki developer Jeremy Rushton" > > These triples encode facts in a hopefully reasonably clear manner. > > So now the N$ question - can we automatically analyse a tiddler and turn > it into a set > of RDF tuples. If we could then we could add these to the huge databases > of RDF tuples > and possible find stuff in a clever way. > > The filter notation in the tiddlywiki reminds me very much of prolog, and > I guess with a but of > work SPARQL queries might be possible (SPARQL is an RDF query language) > > Cheers > > /Joe > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 10 December 2018 17:43:01 UTC+1, @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 >>> >> On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 19:03:30 UTC+1, Joe Armstrong wrote: > > Thinking out loud here ... > > I've been thinking more about tags. One problem is that tags are rather > vague and are written in different human languages. > > One way out of this might be to adopt the wikidata word definitions. For > example, I am, unambiguously > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1691321 > > There are actually several Joe Armstrong's (for example, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q712592) > > These Q numbers uniquely define subjects and objects. Verbs (or > predicates) are given by P numbers > so https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178 means "the organisation or > person who developed the item. > > in RDF speak the triple > > {https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1144644, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178, > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17031730} > > (BTW I recommend clicking on these links and playing around - there's lots > of interesting > data in RDF tuples and the above links are a good place to start looking) > > Means "TiddlyWiki developer Jeremy Rushton" > > These triples encode facts in a hopefully reasonably clear manner. > > So now the N$ question - can we automatically analyse a tiddler and turn > it into a set > of RDF tuples. If we could then we could add these to the huge databases > of RDF tuples > and possible find stuff in a clever way. > > The filter notation in the tiddlywiki reminds me very much of prolog, and > I guess with a but of > work SPARQL queries might be possible (SPARQL is an RDF query language) > > Cheers > > /Joe > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 10 December 2018 17:43:01 UTC+1, @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/da30a9cf-efcf-49dc-ac8b-c64bd5ef646a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
