Thinking out loud here ...
I've been thinking more about tags. One problem is that tags are rather
vague and are written in different human languages.
One way out of this might be to adopt the wikidata word definitions. For
example, I am, unambiguously
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1691321
There are actually several Joe Armstrong's (for example,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q712592)
These Q numbers uniquely define subjects and objects. Verbs (or predicates)
are given by P numbers
so https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178 means "the organisation or
person who developed the item.
in RDF speak the triple
{https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1144644,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178,
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17031730}
(BTW I recommend clicking on these links and playing around - there's lots
of interesting
data in RDF tuples and the above links are a good place to start looking)
Means "TiddlyWiki developer Jeremy Rushton"
These triples encode facts in a hopefully reasonably clear manner.
So now the N$ question - can we automatically analyse a tiddler and turn it
into a set
of RDF tuples. If we could then we could add these to the huge databases of
RDF tuples
and possible find stuff in a clever way.
The filter notation in the tiddlywiki reminds me very much of prolog, and I
guess with a but of
work SPARQL queries might be possible (SPARQL is an RDF query language)
Cheers
/Joe
On Monday, 10 December 2018 17:43:01 UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> One of the things that interests me a lot that the talk raised a bit--and
> which no one seems to know how to answer is ... :-)
>
> - WHAT exactly is an SU (Semantic Unit) in TW writing (or computing
> writing In General, for that matter)?
>
> There is a kind of rule of thumb "its maybe a paragraph"? But, of course
> that won't quite work for the one-sentence brevity of a Nietzsche.
>
> Its obviously highly context dependent. And I doubt much of that context
> lives on the computer itself.
>
> The idea in TW towards writing "the shortest semantic whole possible" (the
> word "fragment" here that is thrown around has muddied waters; they are not
> fragments so much as whole-parts-of-wholes) allows for later
> re-combinations to form more complex semantics.
>
> However, I think its bit of an, ultimately, moot and mute point, in the
> sense that human meaning is often an interaction with technologies of
> expression themselves (though no where ever fully defined by them). So its
> an area of intuited understanding, not formal logic? On the other hand,
> who's offering the horse which water?
>
> Josiah
>
> On Monday, 10 December 2018 12:49:14 UTC+1, PMario wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's the video:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv1UfLPK7_Q&index=9&list=PLvL2NEhYV4ZtWFBNOrApXaIoCTtj-yk7Y
>>
>> have fun!
>> mario
>>
>
--
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/15b60976-2b34-4947-abdc-b24cedd36584%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
