Robots, on Wave at least, seem to be intended to be participants in the wave. Thus, Robots that operate on behalf of the user would be confusing. However, there is already a system in place that acts on behalf of the user, and that is Extensions, which are intrinsic to a user, rather than a wave. This should be what is extended to work with our folders, contacts, etc. Then again, a functionality that is intrinsic to Google Wave itself (such as Gmail-like filters) would probably be the best from a usability and confusion-killing standpoint.
A method for Robots or Extensions to offer links or some sort of ability to change these filters and settings with express user permission may work, but direct access to this could cause some serious havoc *on* my inbox (rather than in), and I do not like the idea of that. Filters should be set by humans, and changed and approved by humans, preferably the humans that own the inboxes. The same is true of contacts, as that is another thing that I don't want a bot or extension messing with directly, but I wouldn't mind it indirectly being allowed to search for "*...@appspot.com" and assigning all of my Robots with their own group, with my express permission of course. Thus, my question is: where do I send a feature request for Google Wave itself, rather than the Robot API? Is it in the same issue tracker? On Nov 17, 7:40 pm, jhb <barr.j...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.... > > 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=.
