TT et al, Word of the day? "Nomenclature <https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/nomenclatural>"
The easiest way I could describe it is "*Private Shorthand Supporting > Public Messaging*". > > One advantage we have both by design and by circumstance is TiddlyWiki produces its results via final rendition in html. As a result whatever you use to generate content is a universally applicable, even copy and paste. The tiddlywiki core plugin $:/plugins/tiddlywiki/internals lets us preview the output in html and copy and paste it. To me html is the public manifestation. How one generates this content is always up to the author. Tiddlywiki can provision a world of options to assist in generating it, from a database backend to easy to implement semi-automatic outputs. To me this returns us to tiddlywiki as a platform. Rather than messaging, although it is one way to think of it, it is publishing content. > It is provision of an efficient method for supporting AUTHOR writing > methods. Full stop. > > An author solution in tiddlywiki has three key audience groups, tiddlywiki enthusiasts/designers, the author and those that read the authors work. All however can have audiences made up of different individuals or groups with different end objectives. As many authors insist, know your audience. 1. If writing something for yourself, the features are all you need and you can build your own Nomenclature, 2. if writing for authors, giving them the tools to write, is another audience for which a flexible but structured solution is needed and must be documented. This is where the shortcuts must be curated and a readable Nomenclature is essential to assist in take up or adoption. 3. We may be smart and use 2 to do 1 4. The final readers (on the whole) do not care how we achieved the result, only that it is readable. However readability and quality will be related to the tools the author makes use of. If my audience is ultimately for me 1 or 2 above I plan to analyse the elements of content of published material and provide high quality short cuts / html and wiki elements to generate content the final audience. The way I plan to go about this is to look for formal standards for writing to identify the elements I need to provision. Normal text only such as novels etc... is trivial, as a result I believe if I look at *text books, documentation, report writing and instruction manuals* I should be able to find an established set of elements for which to build a library of authors shortcuts. We may then alter the defaults to present the result according to different styles but using the same elements. *I would appreciate community support to help identify good style and element guides (Especially yourself TT),* perhaps even an international standard from which to identify and codify the elements. I hope what we learn may eventually be packaged and one or more options for authors. That is style guides backed up by shortcuts. Another important feature of this current project it the reformatting of material obtained elsewhere, a key example is quoting references and online content. But a key source that will only grow is tiddlywiki content. - Which reminds me some work has being done by academics and scientist previously to build such tools already in tiddlywiki. - Also on books and quote collections including but not limited to our Christian friends and the bible. *Let the conversation begin (in another thread?)* Regards Tony Other notes: Guidelines for writing taxonomy for the web <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(general)> > > > - Mutually exclusive categories can be beneficial. If categories > appear several places, it's called cross-listing or polyhierarchical. The > hierarchy will lose its value if cross-listing appears too often. > Cross-listing often appears when working with ambiguous categories that > fits more than one place.[19] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(general)#cite_note-:0-19> > > > - Having a balance between breadth and depth in the taxonomy is > beneficial. Too many options (breadth), will overload the users by giving > them too many choices. At the same time having a too narrow structure, > with > more than two or three levels to click-through, will make users frustrated > and might give up > > Knowledge representation and reasoning <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning> Ontology (information science) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)> Lexicon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/6f5d3d18-7e3c-4066-9d41-8fd53ee30238o%40googlegroups.com.
