On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:51:22AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> The basic idea is to try and map the topology of the London
> nu-media-and-related-industries community.
>
> Anyway, one of the (non enforced) rules is that you don't link from
> yourself to another person unless you play the 'bodily fluid' get out
> rule - if you're blood relatives or seeing somebody. Instead you link
> through other entities such as houses, workplaces, universities and
> online cabals (such as, err, this mailing list). The reasoning behind
Probably worth putting in an expiry thing - if you ("one")'ve lived in
a place, that'll never change but you could easily break up with your
current squeeze and invalidate a link.
> this is that I thought that it would be more scaleable - if I had a link
> to all my friends and all my friends had a link to all my other friends
> then it could get very messy, very quickly.
It does indeed, in a linear 2D space. There are some ways around this
but none I've found that are particularly satisfactory. I'm embarking on
a CFT-fuelled course in graph theory to see it'll help, who knows.
> However a friend of mine argued that having everyone you knew listed
> explicitly would be better since you met everybody you know from a
> situation and so its only going to create extra links by linking through
> the situation as a third party.
This gets into the whole vast topic of trust and reputation metrics. How
well do you know someone? Are links bidirectional or should it be
consensual? What meaning to assign to an unreciprocated link?
http://paulm.com/friends/ecademy/ was a frenzied hack mapping a (mostly)
London business network a while back. Lots of resources at the end.
Definitely would be open to chatting offline if people get bored here...
Paul
--
Paul Makepeace ....................................... http://paulm.com/
"If god is good, then what can you do."
-- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
