This is also useful from a semantic web point of view which is why I made the request. Using a unique ontology or webservice like OpenCalais, documents that are co-created could be tagged easily as well as categorized, the tags are easy to get as well as a general area or topic, using this information is currently difficult. I like the idea of a system where the robot is specific to the user vs the wave because different users may want to utilize unique ontologies or categorize based upon a limited number of categories or topics.
On Nov 17, 1:03 pm, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote: > I imagine that we could implement robots or robot-like agents that > participate on the Wave on your behalf, instead of as an additional > participant. The API would be very similar to robots, but there would likely > be additional UI for users to confirm that these robot-like agents could act > on their behalf. They could then take actions like move things into folders. > > This is still a fair bit in the future, as it would involve a new > permissions framework. > > - pamela > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Adam Ness <adam.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Odd, the behavior must have changed, when I was working with it a week > > ago, It wasn't creating new wavelets, but I was actually using > > RootMessageBundle.createWavelet(participants), so maybe they're not > > the same. It definitely points to an issue with the documentation, it > > should be clearly spelled out which one is intended to do which, since > > right now they look like wrappers and convenience functions. > > > Regardless, I agree that there should be some way to filter and > > arrange waves in folders, but I don't think that Robots or Gadgets are > > the right way to do that. There needs to be some sort of filtering > > mechanism a-la GMail, or possibly some "client API" that allows you to > > add extensions inside your client that can do things on your behalf. > > The problem is that Robots and Gadgets both are bound to waves, not to > > a user, and thus they affect everyone reading that wave, not just the > > user who's interested in them. As you pointed out in another thread, > > robots can currently do some nasty stuff to waves, I would hate to > > give them that kind of power over my account. > > > Also, consider that in the greater "ecosystem" of the wave > > architecture, there may be other federation servers that support > > robots and gadgets, but might not support the same client API, or > > might not support clients at all. > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Have you tried it recently? Because every time I use it it creates a > > > new wave. And I try it again...and it still creates a new wave. The > > > Python version might create a new wavelet inside of the wave like it's > > > supposed to, but the Java API most certainly creates a new wave. > > > > To clarify, I was speaking of having an extension do it, or having a > > > robot that could do it only on the waves that it created. Possibly, > > > not at all doing it without my express permission, with a dialog > > > *shudders* box or at least an opt-in button somewhere on the creation > > > wave. I agree, this is probably the territory of an extension, but I > > > want SOMETHING to take my tags and use them to organize my folders. In > > > fact, I would be most delighted to have a filter system like what > > > Gmail has (which was also mentioned above). > > > > I do agree that a Robot getting access to all my waves from a single > > > wave would be very bad, but having a robot organize the waves that > > > it's in (which should only be application waves) could be very good, > > > assuming that there's some kind of accountability for it, as malicious > > > persons would have a heyday with creating folders for the heck of it, > > > and Robot viruses I do not like. > > > > On Nov 17, 10:14 am, Adam Ness <adam.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Also, wavelet.createWavelet(participants, dataDocumentCallback); in > > >> java doesn't create a new wave, it only creates a new wavelet inside > > >> an existing wave. > > > >> Adam Ness > > > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I agree with almost everything you said. Just one quick point on the > > >> > Robot's creating waves: > > > >> > wavelet.createWavelet(participants, dataDocumentCallback); in Java > > > >> > or > > > >> > robot_abstract.NewWave(context, participants) in Python > > > >> > It is possible, as Robots are indeed full participants in the system > > >> > as if they were their own user. > > > >> > For the folder functionality, I would indeed want either a robot or an > > >> > extension organizing my folders, so that I can have an application > > >> > generate waves, and then automatically have them flow into a certain > > >> > folder. This makes me think of filters in Gmail, which could indeed > > >> > manage everything that I would want as far as folders are concerned, > > >> > especially if robots can add tags which will then be foisted into > > >> > folders by my filter settings. > > > >> > On Nov 17, 2:30 am, Adam Ness <adam.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Actually, there's no way in the current Robot API to create a wave. > > >> >> Robots can only respond to new blips on an existing wave. > > > >> >> Also, because the robots operate within waves, allowing Robots to > > >> >> assign waves to folders is problematic, because it's not clear which > > >> >> user's folders receive the wave. If you've got 10 users on a wave, > > >> >> and a robot gets added, and some of the users have a folder, and > > >> >> others don't, what happens? > > > >> >> Robots aren't extensions, they're just participants, AI's or Agents > > >> >> that act the same way that any other participant in the wave could, > > >> >> but automatically, and without human intervention. Just like I can't > > >> >> drag one of your waves into one of your folders, a robot can't move a > > >> >> wave into one of your folders, because they aren't the Robot's > > >> >> folders, they're Your Folders. Giving a random robot access to my > > >> >> folders just because I happened to have opened a wave that they were > > >> >> partipating in would be a huge security hole, and I wouldn't want to > > >> >> allow that. > > > >> >> Tags are a different matter, since they are assigned to the wave, not > > >> >> bound to a user. Neither the Java API nor the Python API appears to > > >> >> currently support adding tags to items, though it seems reasonable > > >> >> that they could. I'd be worried about robot authors misusing them, > > >> >> but it seems like something that should make it into those APIs at > > >> >> some point in the future. > > > >> >> Gadgets are closer to the standard definition of "extensions" but > > >> >> they're still bound to the wave, not a particular user. Again, > > >> >> granting gadgets permission to muck about with my folder structure > > >> >> just because I happened to open a wave they were attached to would be > > >> >> a bad idea. This would be like allowing attachments to auto-execute > > >> >> themselves when you open an email, and any security expert can tell > > >> >> you why that's a bad idea. > > > >> >> Again, I think a third type of "API" would be necessary to support > > the > > >> >> kind of extensions you're talking about here. Either of the existing > > >> >> extension APIs would cause serious security flaws if they were to be > > >> >> allowed to move things around in your folders, or create new waves. > > > >> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > The problem is that Robots can create a mass of waves, but can't > > >> >> > organize it very well for the user, so the user wouldn't want a > > robot > > >> >> > to do anything outside of the wave, but rather operate entirely > > >> >> > within. Allowing robots to organize themselves would be expand them > > >> >> > outside of a wave-by-wave basis and allow them to be more full- > > >> >> > featured applications. Then again, since robots are essentially > > >> >> > extensions, maybe add the functionality only in robots that are > > part > > >> >> > of extensions. > > > >> >> > On Nov 17, 1:58 am, Adam Ness <adam.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> I don't think Robots could ever be expected to be capable of > > moving > > >> >> >> items into folders, since they're just another Participant on the > > >> >> >> wave, and the folders belong to other participants. > > > >> >> >> Possibly a Gadget API would be a better place for this, or maybe a > > new > > >> >> >> client plugin API, to allow users to write their own plugins that > > >> >> >> don't use the protocol at all, but just the client. > > > >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:07 AM, pamela (Google Employee) > > > >> >> >> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > Hi jhb - > > >> >> >> > A wave can only be in one folder, and robots do not currently > > have the > > >> >> >> > ability to move wave into a folder (or assign tags, a related > > action). > > >> >> >> > Please file a feature request for folder manipulation here: > > >http://code.google.com/p/google-wave-resources/issues/entry?template=... > > >> >> >> > - pamela > > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:30 PM, jhb <barr.j...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> Is there a way to manipulate the location of a wave from a > > user's > > >> >> >> >> inbox to robot created or previously created folders. Also, > > can a > > >> >> >> >> wave be in multiple folders? > > > >> >> >> >> -- > > > >> >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups > > >> >> >> >> "Google Wave API" group. > > >> >> >> >> To post to this group, send email to > > google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. > > >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> >> >> >> google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-wave-api%2Bunsubscribe@ > > >> >> >> >> googlegroups.com> > > . > > >> >> >> >> For more options, visit this group at > > >> >> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=. > > > >> >> >> > -- > > > >> >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups > > >> >> >> > "Google Wave API" group. > > >> >> >> > To post to this group, send email to > > google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. > > >> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> >> >> > google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-wave-api%2Bunsubscribe@ > > >> >> >> > googlegroups.com> > > . > > >> >> >> > For more options, visit this > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Wave API" group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=.
