Talk:TingWiki/ting28
From S23Wiki
[edit] ting28_talk
[edit] ting28, thursday, 26th of May 2005, 21:00 UTC (23:00 CEST)
See the TingWiki/ting28 article page for the ting28_document text-inclusion please.
from server: is-root.de, port: 32123
the plain text page used for the inclusion is http://is-root.de/moonedit/ting28_talk
topic proposals are on the article page
[edit] ting28_talk moon-edit page inclusion
ting28_talk
participants
* ma: MattisManzel
* F: Fabi
----
The topic-node. I'd like to start it. On all wikis people in any corner of the wiki think about how to structure the thing. Mostly ''the thing'' is their wiki - categories, subpages, clusters are on-topic -. Sometimes it's goups of several wikis thinking to get organized. Also imaginable is to think about how to structure wikilandia (the fucking wholeness of wikis). I just looked up ontology. It seems the thing. Making a page TopicNodeOntology on wikis having good resources of wiki-structuralization and linking to them on this page. Below linking to TopicNodeOntology pages on other wikis that relate.
Ontology:
* The study of nature of being, reality and substance. (Philosophy, Meta physics)
* Definition of terms and their realtion ship (Taxonomy)
* The data schema, meta data (Semantic Web)
ma: hi Fabi. Just remembered it, Sunir mentioned it on chat once. No, honestly, all I need is a name for the TopicNode that you can list all structuralisation effonds under. And connect them.
F: If you don't know what ontology means don't use this word. If you know you need to tell everyone you want to talk about it.
I don't know what exactly you want to do. But if it is related to ontologies it get's complicated. And it is hard to do something powerful without...
ma: Imagine the TopicNode. That's where you understand what it is. Not by a definition, not in the first place. Terms, definitions, encyclopedias. First people do, then they write about it. What I mean also, bending ''definitions'', terms like ''geek'' or ''ontology'', where nobody really knows what they mean, using them, trying at least to use them in a ''pop'' sense - checking out if one can't turn water into champaign - is legitimate.
So it's also don't tell anybody not to use words when they don't know what they mean, when you can't imagine what these words might turn into. ;)
Ontologies = complicated, agree. Fails when you see things centered, hierarchic. Ontology needs wholeness. Yggdrasil. Am I right or not?
I'm awful tonight, I know.
F: No. Wholeness is not the problem. Agreement is. And the involved techniques/software/standards. Read the W3C OWL Recommendations and try staying sane...
F: I guess you need to write down what exactly you are trying to do...
ma: you're right! ... on the other hand: wholeness, agreement, I wonder if there isn't a common dividor to these too. Anyhow. Sorry for the ting (not the worst). Good n8 Fabi. :)
