Eric,
I never knew we were working in WAVE. I just knew I was grateful for the help you were giving me ordering my thoughts. I will look into it. Is it capable of reconstructing a thread after the fact, or is it a system for creating threads that can be reconstructed? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:37 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] THREAD BENDING ALERT: Was "Is Bezos a Bozo?" IS NOW"Reading Email exchanges chronologically" Not to burst bubbles.... Isn't this one of the challenges that Google Wave <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Wave> was intended to solve? Admittedly, Wave isn't a way to fix old email threads, but if "turning email threads into documents" was a common desire, Wave would have been more popular. For those not familiar: Wave basically started with an email/online doc, and then allowed you to write as if you were adding to a thread, along with infinite larding and responding to larded comments, and simply displayed them all as a tracked-changes multi-authored document (where you could go back in time to see edits). I managed to muscle Nick into co-authoring a publication using Wave, after goading him with chunks of text cut and pasted from earlier FRIAM email threads. I am, frankly, surprised that some of the associated abilities haven't been integrated into Gmail. A few of the capabilities were taken into Google docs, but those capabilities are painfully limited compared what was available in Wave. At this point, Wave lays peacefully in the Google Graveyard, as the Apache Foundation sort of picked it up, but, from what I can tell, hasn't done much with it for the past 6 years. ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Supervisory Survey Statistician U.S. Marine Corps On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:02 PM, glen ep ropella <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote: On October 28, 2016 7:28:22 PM PDT, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net <mailto:o...@backspaces.net> > wrote: >Sorry to be pedestrian, but how about the OP's desire to convert >thread(s) >into posts/correspondence? But that was my point in mentioning a tree threaded mail reader, especially an open source one. It should be a matter of straightforward engineering to extract the part of tbird that makes a tree out of a thread. That code could be the launch point for a tool to do what we want. Determining whether a line prefixed with the quote char is intentionally quoted or detritus should be easy enough. If all remaining text after the nonquoted part is quoted, then it can be tossed. But if there is a quoted part followed by a nonquoted part, it should remain. I really think 80 to 90 % of what Nick wants exists. But there's no incentive to do that work. And the amount of work to go from 80% to 100% is always large. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
