I guess the other thing we are forgetting is the potential for one of wave's greatest feature - playback.
The possibility is there to also have playback for robot actions on a user's waves & folders, etc. Since they could all be performed through the API, they could be rolled back easily by the user later. On Nov 18, 4:26 am, cmdskp <comdudes...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There are many interesting ideas raised by considering robots as tools > to act on a users behalf or in concert with them. > > With respect to folder management, I do not see any problem with a > robot requesting movement via the API of waves into or between a > user's folders (deleting can be handled by moving into Trash, allowing > easy retrieval if the robot does bad). > > The advantage of robots having access to user folder management is > they can scour out useful information (extended eventually with new > API versions which allow wave searches to be performed by robots, > perhaps triggered by others text) and then deliver it to your > folders. Or a robot could collect wavelets it finds that trigger on > keywords it's monitoring for the user. Robots are far more pervasive > and useful than extensions. They can be your aide in a wave when you > aren't there and filter and present information in new waves later. > > Current robots can be subscribed to by users with user preferences, so > they are already working across the waves on the user's behalf. > > I'll save my other thoughts on robots as user tools for another > discussion later. > > On Nov 18, 3:06 am, Olreich <olre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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=.
