To all, I love this Kind of conversation because we are peeling back the complexity in the universe, tiddlywiki and our minds. I would like to suggest something which I think many of you may have missed.
*Tags can be tiddlers and thus can also be tagged* It is a simple matter of tagging your tag tiddler,s to create a namespace, for example (not something I do much anymore) if you had a set of tiddlers that would be subsequently used as tags to represent the status of a tiddler, you can tag "new" "wip" and "completed" tag/tiddlers with status. When scanning the tags on any tiddler with little effort you can interrogate the tags for belonging to the set of status tags. For each tag test if the tags tiddler has a tag of status. Making a tiddler for each tag also allows you to define or document more about that tag. The reason I no longer do this is tags are not as versatile as a field, and when something changes status, it can be helpful to know when it happened. So I now follow these rules. - If a tiddler is a task tiddler-type field = task then it can or will have a field called item-started, - If item-started is blank then it is a new task, to indicate it is started I put a time stamp in item-started. - If something is started it is now "work in progress" and can now have the option to item-completed or item-cancelled shown. - In most cases I need only test if a field has a value, and in others or sorting I may use its date/timestamp to order, or predict a due date etc.... - This is using fields as if they were tags, yet these tags can "not exist", exist without a value, exist with a value, that value can provide a relative time relationship. If you really like the ease of setting and removing tags you can also use Mario's alt-tags to have multiple tag fields. Such tag fields can be used as subject or category organisation If you want one value only assigned for a given relationship, use a field that only accepts one value. Further if you want that value to be from a curated set provide a select statement with the possible choices or as I like to do use [has:field[fieldname]get[fieldname]] to allow you to only select from existing field values. Using TOC macros or the Kin operator I plan to for example to "tag" tiddlers that represent people, with a field called date-of-birth, if it exist it is a person, but when available can store the date of birth. I will then ensure the genealogical tree only concerns itself with tags on tiddlers (eg parents) that are themselves people (having a data-of-birth) field. Thus the other tags remain free to indicate other qualities. The simple act of ignoring tags prefixed $:/ is enough to keep system tags out of your models. Finally another technique I use is a field than names fields. for example edit-fields contains a list of fields that I may wish to use on a given tiddler, these can be populated by button or template at creation time, and the order of these fields are displayed (which you can drag and Drop) to indicate the order, when a form is presented. Each field has a tiddler by its name, just as a tag can and this contains the definition, or edit macros to modify its contents along with the wikitext/macros to render the fields column heading and cell contents in a list/table. I hope these inspire you or you can share or extend. The new subfilter operator allows you build logical filters such as work-in-progress = [tiddler-type[task]has[item-started]!has[item-completed]!has[item-cancelled]] And use the filter "[all[current]subfilter[work-in-progress]]" or "[project[projectname]subfilter[work-in-progress]]" for all working progress items for the projeectname My belief is there is no complex system you can not model in tiddlywiki Regards Tony On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 2:21:07 AM UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > 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/960cd715-91ad-494a-872e-ee8fcce57c2e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
