[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/FutureVision review-answers-benja.txt

[Benja Fallenstein]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Branch:         
Changes by:     Benja Fallenstein <address@hidden>      03/11/08 09:05:47

Modified files:
        FutureVision   : review-answers-benja.txt 

Log message:
        more

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt.diff?tr1=1.2&tr2=1.3&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt
diff -u manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt:1.2 
manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt:1.3
--- manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt:1.2       Sat Nov  8 
08:58:11 2003
+++ manuscripts/FutureVision/review-answers-benja.txt   Sat Nov  8 09:05:46 2003
@@ -206,16 +206,34 @@
         Specific Comments--
         Abstract: if we build systems structured around things we care about,
         would that necessarily help us organise our lives?
+
+Ok, need to say somewhere why we believe this would be the case,
+and refer to that somehow from the abstract.
+
+    --
         
         Introduction: instead of being centred around 
files/directories...center
         around the things we care about. But surely we will always need to 
develop
         abstractions for aggregation? Will they not be similar to directories?
+
+Ok, need to explain what the equivalents are in our system (a group of
+items related to the same other item through the same property)
+and explain how they're superior to directories (they're semantic,
+they're non-hierarchical, they can "contain" any item, not just files,
+they're not "stored on one disk," you don't have to place items
+in a particular such aggregate... and this is simply much more
+general, doing many things that you'd never dream of doing with files).
+
         Even in the description of applitudes there are still email bodies 
(which
         seem remarkably free of items). Are these not 'files'?
 
-
     Sigh...
 
+Well, they're not files, obviously. Are they 'files'?
+
+Need to address that.
+
+    --
 
         Section 2, sentence 1: delete comma after "medium"
         Section 2, para 5: planning should not be capitalised
@@ -223,36 +241,53 @@
         user interface paradigm? Why not still have files and directories
         underneath?
 
-
     Because it won't really work?
 
     Ok, I guess we need to talk about the layers underneath and
     the reasons for them?
 
+Need to think about this a bit. The question is: Could we use files
+for the bodies of documents and e-mails, but relate them not through
+directories, but a network of items? Perhaps we could. Not saying
+that we want to, but if we could, we should say so and explain
+why we particularly chose not to.
 
+    --
+    
         Figure 1: the diagram shows 1 item (person) under focus. However, the 
suer
         may know hundreds of people - dozens with some form of relationship to
         Carli. Some of the earliest hypertext systems attempted to make use of
         similar maps - and failed. Explain why your system won't have the same
         failings.
 
-
     ? I don't know what systems the referee's referring to.
     Do you?
 
+Nope.
+
+    --
 
         Figure 2a: Where are the items *inside* the email? Is the email just a
         file of content? I receive 100 emails a day - convince me that this is 
a
         useful visualisation!
 
-
     Need to point out that this is integration...
 
+Yes.
+
+    --
 
         Final 2 paragraphs of section 2 - you claim that paper isn't useful to
         help us organise our thoughts, but that a hyperstructure will be. Your
         claim seems to rest on the idea that the more interconnections there 
are,
-        the more organised everything will be. Is this likely? Convince me that
+        the more organised everything will be. Is this likely?
+
+Bogus. You need to be able to make interconnections at all, and just
+as many as you need; more isn't better.
+
+    --
+
+        Convince me that
         you have thought this through rather than reciting Nelson's view. Have 
a
         look at the network diagrams from the early Intermedia papers on the
         Victorian web.