Tobias, sorry, was not able to open MBTF. I will try again later. The "merge-conflicts" is a must in a multi-user environment but I see no "complexities of resolving merge-conflicts" at a well established authentication system, theoretically. On PBWorks, for example, I can easily distinguish my editions from editions of other users. Theoretically again, I would expect a notification from the system on the changes of a page I edited previously. The system would allow me reading the document only if I accepted the changes (made by others, as a bunch), federate the last version for me, or reverse to my last edition. PBWorks is highlighting the changes by comparing any selected versions. I don't see the theoretical limitations for TW doing the same. Unfortunately, I did not even touch this subject, versioning and authentication, yet and can't really advise anything. That's where I would appreciate help and contribution from the experts in this field. Please think of me as a theorist with a few years of experience in the "findability" field. Saying that, I am not going to stop my efforts in developing this knowledge missing from LikeInMind, when and if that becomes a barrier to the development of the product. One of the methods of versioning seems being relevant here: one way synchronisation with retaining the "conflicting" versions in a "backup" directory. In other words, no deletion of (versions of) tiddlers allowed. The author and end users, their memory and practical experience are the criteria validating the integrity of tiddlers. If something went wrong, a user must have the means of "rolling back" reliably any number of changes. Ideally, he should be able to select a piece of text of his concern and see who and when introduced those changes. Theoretically, according to IPFS protocol, that should be possible. Practically, that is one of the critical features of the future methods of protection of the Intellectual Property: PBIIMS Proposal <http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/PBIIMS-Proposal>. Tobias, Dear All, thank you for the job you are doing. I believe, together we will be able to work out the practical ways of realising the future we deserve. Cheers, Dmitry
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 01:10:08 UTC+13, Tobias Beer wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > Without getting into too much detail atm, thank you for your very well > thought out response which quite put your motivation(s) into perspective. > > You are indeed quite ambitious and I now see that you are rather good at > communicating a clear perspective, perhaps leading to workable future > frameworks, in terms of organisation as well as technological focus. > > Of course, you can imagine that *multi-user* is a buzzword that probably > popped up as early as the first year of TiddlyWiki being around. > > With the end of TiddlySpace and plenty silence around TiddlyWeb, the most > advanced collaborative technology for TiddlyWiki didn't quite manage to > sprout, if only for its gardeners having gone and focus on other fruits to > harvest. > > So, at this point, it seems, we've gone back to square 1 for now in terms > coming to new forms of TiddlyWiki-driven collaboration. You can still see a > remnant of previous collaborative efforts involving inclusion of bags of > tiddlers in the context where needed in something like: > http://mbtf.tiddlyspace.com, knowing that local centers were able to > include the master documentation and branch of from there, extend it as > needed... while the master documentation would be able to list and display > local variations of itself. > > I am in no position to say wheter TWederation has the potential of filling > the collaboration gap or not. > > Possibly, a node.js & GitHub driven workflow, especially for a developer > community seems to make for a splendid TiddlyWiki based collaboration > platform, including versioning, and conflict resolution via merges, etc... > with the master being publicly accessible for consumption, for example... > somewhat similar to TiddlyWiki.com. But, of course, this type of workflow > is hardly apt for the general public, or so it seems, for now. but perhaps > it actually isn't. There once were some tests regarding a GitStore > implementation... you know, storing tiddlers in GitHub directly, from > within TiddlyWiki. But you can imagine the complexities of resolving > merge-conflicts, should they arise. > > As for a P2P web of tiddlers, it appears we've only just started exploring > this kind of technology, e.g. via BeakerBrowser > <https://beakerbrowser.com/>. How this helps advance multi-user > applications, at this point, is more or less unknown. > > Anyway, there's solving all the little challenges which I think is what > this group is doing, mostly, every day. But perhaps it's time to consider > the more long term challenges a bit more frequently and a bit more > strategically, not just from a development point of view, in terms of > code-base that is. How and possibly where that may unfold, we have yet to > see. > > Best wishes, > > Tobias. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/84b9afab-a634-4440-a548-b787a6d189e1%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
