Fwd: [reprap-dev] reprap-dev
Bryan Bishop
From: Adrian Bowyer <A.Bo...@bath.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:50 AM
Subject: [reprap-dev] reprap-dev
To: repra...@lists.reprap.org
This will be my last posting to this list because, when I have
finished typing it, I shall unsubscribe.
reprap-dev was established to hold discussions on how to drive stepper
motors, whether rolling-element or plain bearings were better for
machine axes, and how to organise and to distribute RepRap information.
It was not established to hold discussions on what is and what isn't a
RepRap, nor on which commercial companies and individuals are more, or
less, in tune with the moral and philosophical principles of the
project (if any).
I am happy to have my in-box filled with the former type of
discussion, but not the latter.
If someone can tell me when the latter type of discussion is expunged
from the list I would be grateful. I shall then sign up again.
Best wishes
Adrian
Dr Adrian Bowyer
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensab
http://reprap.org
_______________________________________________
reprap-dev mailing list
repra...@lists.reprap.org
http://reprap.org/mailman/listinfo/reprap-dev
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Andrew Plumb
All that posturing and pontificating gets in the way of creating. ;-)
Andrew.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
--
"The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson
Paul D. Fernhout
> On 2010-09-08, at 8:15 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> well this is useless
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Adrian Bowyer<A.Bo...@bath.ac.uk>
>> Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:50 AM
>> Subject: [reprap-dev] reprap-dev
>> To: repra...@lists.reprap.org
>>
>> This will be my last posting to this list because, when I have
>> finished typing it, I shall unsubscribe.
>>
>> reprap-dev was established to hold discussions on how to drive stepper
>> motors, whether rolling-element or plain bearings were better for
>> machine axes, and how to organise and to distribute RepRap information.
>>
>> It was not established to hold discussions on what is and what isn't a
>> RepRap, nor on which commercial companies and individuals are more, or
>> less, in tune with the moral and philosophical principles of the
>> project (if any).
>>
>> I am happy to have my in-box filled with the former type of
>> discussion, but not the latter.
>>
>> If someone can tell me when the latter type of discussion is expunged
>> from the list I would be grateful. I shall then sign up again.
>
> and separate -discuss or -users lists, to contain the chatter.
>
> All that posturing and pontificating gets in the way of creating. ;-)
You may well be right in practice with email, but none-the-less I think this
once again suggests the need for much better tools for communications than
plain email. If we were using something like a social semantic desktop (or
whatever) to create these open manufacturing systems, people could post
whatever they wanted to a cloud of ideas and semantic tagging done by the
community (including how hardware oriented some post was) would let items
that Adrian was interested bubble up to some semantic-related queue he set
up for himself, essentially as a form of topical moderation (but, where
there was an infinite number of topics). At least, that's the hope. :-)
For example, someone makes a post about ball bearings. That gets tagged
later as "hardware" related. Or even more specifically, as about "bearings".
Someone else posts about how some company or other does not get some aspect
of a purported open source ethic. That post gets tagged as "social" or
"business" or "ethics" or maybe all of those. Adrian sets up a filter so
that only things tagged "hardware" come to his attention (although maybe
once in a while he might look at a broader stream, from which he might
decide to add some new tags).
If someone tags something inappropriately just to get attention, then
somehow that social gaffe is noted (making the users tags less heavily
weighted). Similarly, tags might even be weighted as to that post is mostly
about social but a tiny bit about bearings. Or, perhaps tools would allow a
community (under a granted free license) to just mark sections of an email
with contextual tags. One could even mark items as "posturing". :-) Of
course, then there might be a whole set of etiquette that revolves around
how people label posts and each other... Or other tools to manage that.
One might also have some automated tools that help with all this or do it in
parallel (so much of what Google Search is essentially about). But a key
point is that right now, once an email is sent, you can't change it -- but
all these other processes involve putting metadata on top of things after
they have been sent, so you either need to modify the original or you need
tools that can somehow link later items (emails with moderation
information?) back to the original data.
And at that point, you may want an entirely different system than email, but
you are still stuck with the fact everyone uses email (including to notify
them of new events like a post somewhere). Some email systems like
Thunderbird are extensible and also support RSS feeds, so one could imagine,
to begin with, a Thunderdbird add-on that does some of this for a group --
assuming everyone uses that plugin, since otherwise the group is going to
have a bunch of messages about metadata that a person might find hard to
wade through (although I guess one could have a "metadata" tag).
For an example of someone doing this in an adhoc way, Brian pulled out some
key posts to this list early on:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/61c441e86c8fe88d?hide_quotes=no#msg_ed9f164fe4d3c8b3
But his site seems to be down at the moment:
http://heybryan.org/om.html
At least email is distributed and in that sense more resilient...
One thing I've thought about is just having a system where every email
contains an attached file with structured data (like in the current Pointrel
System format). But, rather than email, it might just make more sense to
post those filed directly to a git repository (see the previous comments on
GitHub). Anyway, I'm still working on those sorts of ideas on and off..
Mostly off for a variety of reasons, though I've been doing some stuff
recently.. :-)
http://www.twirlip.net/
While I've never posted on that reprap list myself, or really follow it,
still, I don't think you can in a healthy way separate tools from their
context or bigger implications especially in community discussions, because
that is in part what got us in such a mess in the first place. (See also
Langdon Winner or many other writes on technology and society.)
But, as above, I think one can productively talk about how individuals can
relate to that all, especially since it can take a lot of concentration for
a time to accomplish various technical objectives. For example, even within
the context of email, there could be a reprap-dev list where there is a lot
of discussion, and a reprap-dev-gems list that only a few of those posts are
forwarded to, where Adrian is subscribed to that filtered list. That's a lot
like what you said, although maybe with some formal level of filtering in
there. But it really is just kludgy. And many lists just do "moderating" up
front by one person rejecting posts. And it doesn't really reflect the
deeper issue of creating and sustaining a community, or as Doug Englebart or
Clay Shirkey talk about, how tools co-evolve with their communities.
http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/vision-highlights.html
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Anyway, I can understand Adrian's frustration, but ultimately, it's a
general issue that needs a general solution. Also, when you essentially bill
your device as "the end of capitalism" (or something like that which used to
be on the reprap.org main page, but seems to be gone now) you're going to
get a lot of diverse chatter. :-)
The long-term social issue has to revolve around some form of appropriate
semantic tagging, IMHO. And I don't see that as a before-the-fact filtering,
as in, "is this post appropriate for this group?", but more an
after-the-fact tagging done by the community, as in, "what aspect of the
community interests do various people think this post contributes towards
now that we see it?". Web forums can do that to some degree, which is why
some people like them (whether slashdot with its moderation system, or other
systems where you can add tags even after the fact to a post). As I note
here, based on what Doram said on the OpenVirgle list:
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle/browse_thread/thread/09c12ead6464db66
Anyway, so, I'd semantically file Adrian's comment as essentially a
design-related bug report on email and mailing lists. :-)
Is all that tagging a lot of work, and so likely to not get done? Well, yes.
I can't find it at the moment, but there is a great rant by someone on why
semantic tagging will never work because people are "lazy". :-) Of course,
ironically, it's also exactly because people are lazy that we do want good
semantic tagging. :-) That's all part of the problem. Although, again,
automated tools can help some with that, essentially generating the tags and
other relationships by keywords or how things are linked to each other. And,
if people know that Adrian is only reading stuff marked "hardware" or
whatever, then people might put some effort into adding that tag, and they
will get a bad reputation in the community as far as tagging goes if their
tagging is over the long term not deemed reliable (although that is yet
another layer for tagging about, or weighting tags).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
http://www.semanticdesktop.org/
http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Semantic_Desktop
One can just also by fiat (like in a company) say that part of the job
description is adding metadata and semantic tagging, same as one may enforce
coding standards:
"Semantic Tagging "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O50GXw11748
Or, one can find people who like to do that sort of thing (historically,
librarians and scholars...)
Also, by tags I don't mean just simple word or phase tags. I'm thinking in
terms of a reified triple-like relationship (RDF-like), where you say, this
item is related to this item (a tag perhaps) by this third item, as in
triple1234 has contents "post123 has-tag hardware" which is ultimately a
much more flexible system, because then you can also say "triple1234
weighting low" or "post123 license CC-BY-SA" or lots of other stuff down the
road, where, essentially, people are communicating by modifying an object
database defined by triples.
I think the problem here, more than anything, is the paradigm gap between
people who see a mailing list as a community (which has its own dynamics)
and people who see a mailing list as a semantic tag (that is, all posts
should appropriately have a specific tag or set of tags that some person
finds acceptable). Something like the above suggestions might be a way to
find some common ground between those two paradigms.
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of
abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
Whosawhatsis
bad they gave it the axe before it even had the chance to try to prove
itself (something like Wave is completely useless when people can't
use or even see it without an invitation from a third-party).
On Sep 8, 7:37 am, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
wrote:
> Anyway, I can understand Adrian's frustration, but ultimately, it's a
> general issue that needs a general solution. Also, when you essentially bill
> your device as "the end of capitalism" (or something like that which used to
> be on the reprap.org main page, but seems to be gone now) you're going to
> get a lot of diverse chatter. :-)
>
> The long-term social issue has to revolve around some form of appropriate
> semantic tagging, IMHO. And I don't see that as a before-the-fact filtering,
> as in, "is this post appropriate for this group?", but more an
> after-the-fact tagging done by the community, as in, "what aspect of the
> community interests do various people think this post contributes towards
> now that we see it?". Web forums can do that to some degree, which is why
> some people like them (whether slashdot with its moderation system, or other
> systems where you can add tags even after the fact to a post). As I note
>
> read more »
Paul D. Fernhout
> Sounds like the type of problem Google Wave was hoping to solve. Too
> bad they gave it the axe before it even had the chance to try to prove
> itself (something like Wave is completely useless when people can't
> use or even see it without an invitation from a third-party).
Yes, Google Wave headed in that direction as far as a better communications
tool. Groove (eventually bought by Microsoft) was another system in that
direction (totally distributed), as to some extent, Lotus Notes also was in
that direction (server-based), in terms of being communications platforms
which also could have custom modules to handle various types of data. So,
there have been attempts in that direction, but Google Wave was probably the
biggest in terms of getting a lot of publicity and being open (the other two
are proprietary). And there was Doug Engelbart's Augment in the past, and
lots of other systems. Drupal as a very popular platform now could be said
to be that way, I guess, as just one of many web app frameworks for
collaboration (but with 6600 modules at current count).
http://drupal.org/getting-started/project-features
http://drupal.org/project/modules/index
Hmmm.. :-)
Yes, I also feel like Google did throw in the towel too soon; I'm really
surprised by that. However, I can speculate, with the purchase of MetaWeb,
if they are realizing that they need more semantic network solutions? Google
Wave, in that sense, is more like a conventional web forum, not really a
semantic application. And, to my mind, that's maybe what all the examples I
list above lacked -- a semantic focus in terms of relationships and symbolic
pointers.
That was what led to me coining the term "Pointrel" in the early 1980s, from
Pointers and Relationships (as opposed to Lists for LISP), even though I
later learned it was a real word (it means an engraving tool). About a
decade ago, I suggested to George Miller (my college advisor) that he add it
to WordNet and he did, but now I wished I had not, because now it is all
over the web since so many people mirror the WordNet content in various
ways. I liked it better ten years or so ago when a Google search on
"Pointrel" just turned up my pages and a couple of other pages related to
code that used that as an abbreviation in some way. :-)
The roboticists who have been active for a long time like Hans Moravec are
finally, thirty years later, having access to computers are powerful enough
to do what they wanted to do then in terms of simple algorithms that
processed lots of data repetitively (Hans has written about that). So too I
(and others) are finally getting access to systems powerful enough in terms
of computation and storage to do semantic things we wanted to do a long time
ago. There was a time when you had to have access to a university computer
lab and very expensive equipment to do all this, now a SmartPhone can do
much of it and might have many GBs of flash storage, and the Cloud or even
just a desktop can do a lot more. The big issue is that back then I had the
time and not the equipment, now I have the equipment but not the time. :-)