Tiddlywiki and Codepen, JSFiddle, .... or similar

[Mohammad]

As most of you know many forums use a kind of online playground for prototyping their answers using codepen, jsfiddle, or similar tools ...

Why we don't use one TW wiki here to do like that? I know we need TW with multi user authentication! But why not to use tiddlyspot for now?

--Mohammad

[TonyM]

Mohammad,

That is a good idea for tiddlywiki but also thought if the process to include javascript was promoted effectivly as a sand box demo environment people could download, then a lot of the various open source projects may put in the effort to integrate with tiddlywiki.

Regards
Tony

[Mohammad]

Tony
This is a very active forum, it is a pity we have minimum facilities here. There were many discussions over this forum, how we can use a better solution but never come to a decision.

Mohammad

[TonyM]

Mohammad,

You tell me the answer to your Question. I built Yammer at https://www.yammer.com/tiddlywiki/

But even with 25+ people joining only a few even tried to have a conversation, with this tool. 

We do not even have the community involvement to discuss its pros and cons

I suggested it is likely to be a very helpful tool (my experience with a 45,000 people network) and can present a detailed argument in its favour, yet I cant get many to even try it.

Change is hard to implement but considering change evaluation in the first place even harder.

Then if Yammer + another tool (eg Git) was a good solution, people would complain before we could consider the combination.

Yammer has a lot of integrations.

You can see how I would not dare propose Microsoft teams and other solutions I know about if I cant even get a hearing on the first one I propose. PS I have looked at other proposed solutions but they too did not progress due to lack of involvement.

How do we open the community up to evaluation?

Regards

Tony

[TonyM]

Example Yammer Integration

Post Yammer messages with new GitHub commits

Make sure everyone knows what's going on with development, even if they're not checking GitHub, by setting up this automation to post about it. Every new commit on GitHub will trigger this Zap, posting a new message on Yammer with the details (which can optionally be posted only for a specific group.)

How this GitHub-Yammer integration works

1. A new commit is made on GitHub
2. Zapier automatically posts a message on Yammer

Apps involved

• GitHub
• Yammer

Regards

Tony

[Mohammad]

Tony,

 I understood people like a free and open host like google forum.

-Mohammad

[TonyM]

Mohammad,

So what about yammer is not free and the content is open and exportable. I am not even asked about this except once.

That can not be the explanation in my view.

Tony

[Jed Carty]

I couldn't see anything on yammer without waiting to be allowed into it, and I needed an account to see it. It doesn't bring enough to the forum to be a viable substitute for google groups because it not only has to be able to match the functionality here, it has to 1) have a promise of future desirability and 2) make the change from here to yammer worth the effort.

Switching to something that is only a little better isn't a worth-while task, and while I have a google account for historical reasons I feel there is negative utility to giving up my information to microsoft as well.

While Google may not have a much better track record that Microsoft, it is still better even if google is fighting to change that.

And we are not that far away from being able to have our own system that we can use which makes the work required to switch to a new system that is completely under the control of another third party even less desirable.

[TonyM]

jed,

With all due respect much of what you said is simply wrong. Some is related to its beta (or TiddlyWiki) status, You and others are making assumptions and not investigating it properly. I have full control of this now open use network and can share control with multiple administrators and users even on a per group level, It has a great deal of advantages over GG and Possibly many other potential solutions, it also has its limitations (some of which we already have covered in GitHub) but the ability to export our own data etc... all exist.

As I stated before, if people use it and identify show stopping limitations, they will at least inform us of what we want in a future solution.

I was going to spend hours explaining, promoting and countering misinformation to promote this as a solution at least to be considered by a set of people keen to see this resolved, but I thought we were all adults here (I am not saying you are not), and that I may have elicited sufficient respect over the years with my contribution that some people would take a serious look. Have an open mind. Especially since I have said I believe it a viable solution given I have being  involved in a 45,000 person network before.

I am sorry, but there seems to be too much fear of change, to even consider a change, that even if we do build a new solution, my expectations are that it too will be relatively ineffective compared to what we could have, if there was a greater dialogue on such things. Personally I would and have signed up to any proposed possible platform to investigate myself when others proposed it.

I will not make a rod to beat my own back over this. My contribution is big enough to not need me to spend a lot more time "pushing s--t uphill" and trying to act in the communities best interest by asking people to consider the advantages of one solution.

Yours Sincerely

Tony

[Jed Carty]

I did make an account on yammer because without that I couldn't see anything in the group unless I did. If you want a detailed list of why I don't like it I can provide it.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

TonyM wrote:

But even with 25+ people joining only a few even tried to have a conversation, with this tool. 

Ciao Tony,  I have commented a few times on your Yammer. 

TBH I think part of the volume issue is simply the number of activists on GG is pretty "low" (low but v. effective for ongoing issues). 

Part of the issue is that an ALTERNATIVE system could be great IF there were mass conversion BUT getting mass conversion is a very complex process that in many ways needs to be VOLUME driven. We don't have the volume, I think. So, regardless of Yammer abilities, its very tough to get viable traction.

BTW, a significant factor is that many use GG through email (basically a kind of listserv) that can't use tools like forum tagging ... its crude ... So its a big step from email usage only to web-forum usage and that barrier IS in this play.

I'm more hopeful than I was that Jed's vision of TW itself being able to deliver the interactive discussion we need has potential and might eventually happen.

Just thoughts, best wishes

Josiah

[Mark S.]

There's at least one key member on GG that likes getting email.

On Yammer, I don't see any way to have titles. Nor to collapse threads. Nor to hide away left and right sidebars so you can concentrate on text. It also has the forum behaviour where each response is in a smaller box to the right. This threading mode becomes unusable in intense back-and-forth conversations. These features make it less comfortable to use than GG, where I can see a week's worth of responses at a glance, and am not forced to type into a postage stamp. Perhaps there are some settings that I haven't discovered that could fix all that?

Yammer also has the problem of brand recognition. I just don't see it's name come up anywhere else. On the other hand, I encounter stack-exchange and other similar forums all the time.

It seems like only a small percentage of people are concerned about the situation with GG. It's only when you're looking for past "treasures" that it becomes problematic.

I think we just need some organized, reliable place to squirrel away the various discoveries, inventions and tid-bits that appear on GG. Dave has done a sensational job with Tiddlymaps -- maybe an open version of Tiddlywiki.com would fit the bill.

-- Mark

[Mark S.]

Something Jed said about Yammer finally settled in. You have to sign in in order to view the contents. That means people aren't going to find it with standard searches. So it's OK for a group of people working together, but not so good for discovery outside the circle of individuals. That's kind of a show-stopper.

-- Mark

[@TiddlyTweeter]

I agree. For everything TW public facing its best its open access on READ. Its important in many ways. Not least because TW can need some reading up before you commit a TW.

J.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

As one of the people who has moaned about the mess of finding stuff when you need it I very much agree with your TO-THE-POINT points.

Its SQUIRELLING that may help most fill in the Documentation Problem. 

TBH the issue has been about identifying what--but ONLY what--is needed ... I pretty much think that post of yours gets it down. Whilst "squillering" may be a metaphor it suggestive in the right way that's probably workable.

Josiah

Mark S. wrote:

... It seems like only a small percentage of people are concerned about the situation with GG. It's only when you're looking for past "treasures" that it becomes problematic.

[TonyM]

Thanks all for some real interaction, pity it is all from a somewhat negative perspective, but here is my responses.

I appreciate you effort to respond, but hope you can extend this to my replies to your criticisms.

Despite thinking Yammer has a lot to offer us, I am not tying my ego to this product, I am just trying to more the discussion and identify a possible solution, even if it is not for ever. I think Yammer could inform a future solution.

Finally there are topic's and add ins for many other systems. Let me investigate for you as a result of our expressed needs.

Regards

Tony

My Comments are in italics

Josiah

Part of the issue is that an ALTERNATIVE system could be great IF there were mass conversion BUT getting mass conversion is a very complex process that in many ways needs to be VOLUME driven. We don't have the volume, I think. So, regardless of Yammer abilities, its very tough to get viable traction.

I am happy to discuss mass conversion if you like, we can invite all members of GG, place a message on the Forum and more

BTW, a significant factor is that many use GG through email (basically a kind of listserv) that can't use tools like forum tagging ... its crude ... So its a big step from email usage only to web-forum usage and that barrier IS in this play.

Yammer can be used almost exactly like Google Groups by email submission and subscription to Yammer as a whole or in a group, you may never even open the forum view and live in a world of emails and digest emails if you wanted.This is thus not a barrier, but it is a poor way to communicate.

I'm more hopeful than I was that Jed's vision of TW itself being able to deliver the interactive discussion we need has potential and might eventually happen.

I would love to use TiddlyWiki in that way, drinking our own Champagne, but I believe until we have better communication that will be slow coming, if we use a system such as Yammer we will also develop expectations we can build into the TiddlyWiki version

Mark S

On Yammer, I don't see any way to have titles. Nor to collapse threads. Nor to hide away left and right sidebars so you can concentrate on text. It also has the forum behaviour where each response is in a smaller box to the right. This threading mode becomes unusable in intense back-and-forth conversations. These features make it less comfortable to use than GG, where I can see a week's worth of responses at a glance, and am not forced to type into a postage stamp. Perhaps there are some settings that I haven't discovered that could fix all that?

Mark, effectively the first line is the title, threads auto-collapse if you have read them, on any Conversation select "..." and "view conversation" to get a view of just that conversation (even in a new tab), this link can be shared. Unlike other forums the continues conversation does not get progressively move to the right, however you can reply to individual replys and in your reply everyone can see which specific item you replyed to. Depending on what you choose to see a weeks worth of responses can be seen at a glance, or more importantly your inbox will show all the conversations and groups where new responses are and not show one you have read.(unless you want to), There is a lot you have not all discovered that would be come obvious after a week of use.

Yammer also has the problem of brand recognition. I just don't see it's name come up anywhere else. On the other hand, I encounter stack-exchange and other similar forums all the time.

yammer only became completely free to build such free communities recently, it is well known in fortune 1,000 companies, it started as restricted to specific domains so that an organisation knew the members belonged to the organisation

It seems like only a small percentage of people are concerned about the situation with GG. It's only when you're looking for past "treasures" that it becomes problematic.

This may be so, yet issues reoccur all the time, people rarely say they found something with search, there is no way to curate into additional subgroups, its hard to maintain "files" or documents since its all a stream of emails and no "storage" and if a few people want to continue off topic in detail wee all have to see it, this is not the case with Yammer

I think we just need some organised, reliable place to squirrel away the various discoveries, inventions and tid-bits that appear on GG.

Yammer can do this, all power to TiddlyMap - give us a scalable writeable interactive version and lets go, but until then?

Actually I think Yammer could complement not replace GG, although with increased use GG would become first contact in time

Something Jed said about Yammer finally settled in. You have to sign in in order to view the contents. That means people aren't going to find it with standard searches. So it's OK for a group of people working together, but not so good for discovery outside the circle of individuals. That's kind of a show-stopper.

This is the current and default paradigm, I am happy to investigate if this is ultimately a limitation

Josiah

I agree. For everything TW public facing its best its open access on READ. Its important in many ways. Not least because TW can need some reading up before you commit a TW.

This is the current and default paradigm, I am happy to investigate Open for read, fact is in Yammer we could both curate and have multiple editors for any document and there will always be a source of truth latest version of documentation, even the documents can be commented on.

Its SQUIRELLING that may help most fill in the Documentation Problem.

Totally agree, I believe Yammer is superior here, for a number of reasons, such as groups, sharing conversations across groups, groups have have links to urls, files and other groups, yammer can be the workplace to collaboratively build the content for the ultimate reference, including in TiddlyWiki

Jed

I couldn't see anything on yammer without waiting to be allowed into it, and I needed an account to see it. It doesn't bring enough to the forum to be a viable substitute for google groups because it not only has to be able to match the functionality here, it has to 1) have a promise of future desirability and 2) make the change from here to yammer worth the effort.

That is the current setup, I am happy to explore changing that, but as raised previously, I am happy to discuss mass conversion/invitation if you like, we can invite all members of GG, place a message on the Forum and develop a self enrolling method

Switching to something that is only a little better isn't a worth-while task, and while I have a google account for historical reasons I feel there is negative utility to giving up my information to Microsoft as well.

Until it is evaluated effectively I do not think it fair to say "that is only a little better", Given from my experience it is much better, Lets not abandon GG just build a better resource that can curate what we have in it historically. Is "giving your data to Microsoft" any different giving it to the world in an open mailing list? Microsoft grants us the ability to own our content and take it with us

While Google may not have a much better track record that Microsoft, it is still better even if google is fighting to change that.

I can say the same for Microsoft, Google may have started on the open place and Microsoft on the Proprietary (Which I have hated it for in the past) however Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall and is opening up a lot, providing enabling technology and less lock in technology.

And we are not that far away from being able to have our own system that we can use which makes the work required to switch to a new system that is completely under the control of another third party even less desirable.

Its not "system that is completely under the control of another third party" and to be frank, I like what I have heard about the systems that are not far away sound great, but they are not trying to solve everything that I believe yammer can, an I for one have not being able to contribute to their design/requirements

I did make an account on yammer because without that I couldn't see anything in the group unless I did. If you want a detailed list of why I don't like it I can provide it.

Jed, I am keen to listen to and investigate any issue you may raise, but I urge you to ask questions before raising criticisms, because I believe there is a bit of a paradigm shift using yammer to our advantage, it is however important to argue from a position of understanding, not first impressions

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:34:15 PM UTC+11, TonyM wrote:

[Mark S.]

Hi Tony,

I agree. For everything TW public facing its best its open access on READ. Its important in many ways. Not least because TW can need some reading up before you commit a TW.

This is the current and default paradigm, I am happy to investigate Open for read, fact is in Yammer we could both curate and have multiple editors for any document and there will always be a source of truth latest version of documentation, even the documents can be commented on.

I think this (Open for read) should be at the top of your agenda, if Yammer is ever to compete/complement GG. A study back in 2014 (https://mashable.com/2012/08/23/password-overload/#pYeNlRgdniqd) suggested that 38% of  people would rather clean their toilets than make another password account.

-- Mark 

[TonyM]

Mark,

I will look into it soon, but idealy I would like to see other must haves identified along with a little more exploration of yammers advantages.

Perhaps some of the addin apps need to be considered, or even created for example github connectivity.

But I will do as you suggest.

Tony

[Jed Carty]

Must haves would include:

Searchable by title (not just by text content)

Accessibility (the site is very hard for me to use, the clutter of having the three columns is a problem, the conversation structure is a problem for me reading it, not being able to change the styling on the page makes it hard for me to read)

Publicly viewable posts

A concise and easily viewable list of recent posts, preferably with an indicator of if I have seen each post or not

As far as creating apps go, while I am very willing to donate time to make things that help the community, I am not comfortable making tools that are exclusively useful on a closed platform like Yammer. If there were something like githubs web hooks i would consider it, but I don't want to do free work for Microsoft.

[Alex Hough]

I'm one of those users who gets GG via email.

I search the group on my email. 

Instead of tagging, perhaps we should be looking at a way of indexing. TW is a great indexer.

I sometimes search using a particular members email address as filter, making the assumption that there will be TiddlyGold in their reply.

In the world of systems this issue occurs with IT. One solution is to increase order at source (that would mean that community members add meta data to a shared schema) the other is to increase order by categorising on the other side of the "variety balance" 

Clearly there are value judgements to be made in the latter option. I tend to browse based on a handful of well known great question askers and great answerers -- we all know who they are....

In summary, I think we should keep using GG and think of ways of re-using the content that's already there and making smart assumptions...

best wishes

Alex

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/a50dc853-a530-462d-ac98-dc3a219ff8ab%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Alex Hough]

the design problem surely needs to be around using TW to refine a knowledge base...

Taking the metaphor of tiddlers and fish -- to help think about this -- there are some "big fish" (people who have developed languages or frameworks, have spoken at conferences (Joe and Jeremy) ...

One the TW Dev group the interactions between Joe and Mario, Josiah, Ged, Tony, Simon, Jeremy seem to offer a rich resource for the type of small fish (like myself) who is happy to pick up scraps. We have good questions and good answers: for a TW fan it makes for good viewing. 

The TW community has grown organically. There is no formal organisation like the "International TiddlyWiki User Research Foundation", but if there were some -- even lightweight - commitment to something like that then some of the technology issues might dissolve.

The solution may lie in the people space not the technology space.  

best wishes

Alex

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/c061d3a7-81a2-48c0-af11-1af365f87765%40googlegroups.com.

[Alex Hough]

Hello All,

Get Google Groups Data – Tool to fetch all messages of a Google Group as raw mbox data [1], then extract data based on searches based on contents of tiddlers on TW.com

map each tiddler onto the mega-archieve -- give options to refactor, submit, demo on a TW

If we use the Jeremy technique of thinking "what's at the next level of abstraction" (excuse me for putting words in your mouth here Jeremy!) we could start with TiddlyWiki being a tool for personal "garbage collector" (as Joe puts it) for use on the web, to a knowledge creation tool in a specific domain.

In some ways we are lucky that we have two consistent Google Group. Is this a matter of getting funding for some kind of research project, and having some funded working on it? 

TW seems to be a rich community, an interesting group for researchers. Perhaps we could collectively come up with some questions we could approach research organisations with...

Alex

[1] https://github.com/henryk/gggd

[Mohammad]

Alex,

 This is amazing! So, it is possible to get all messages, categorized them and put in tiddlers!

Lets see what other people here say!

-Mohammad

[Alex Hough]

Mohammad,

I don't know... but perhaps it a data mining problem...

This question [1] seems the same as ours:

 I have a large corpus of documents from the same domain. There are parts of text that hold the key information what single document talks about. I want to extract some of those parts and use them as kind of a summary of the text. Is there any useful documentation about how to achieve something like this.

The answer given is 

What you're describing is often achieved using a simple combination of TF-IDF and extractive summarization.

In a nutshell, TF-IDF tells you the relative importance of each word in each document, in comparison to the rest of your corpus. At this point, you have a score for each word in each document approximating its "importance." Then you can use these individual word scores to compute a composite score for each sentence by summing the scores of each word in each sentence. Finally, simply take the top-N scoring sentences from each document as its summary.

Earlier this year, I put together an iPython Notebook that culminates with an implementation of this in Python using NLTK and Scikit-learn: A Smattering of NLP in Python.

I've not done this kind of thing before, but the idea came to me by remembering a friend who used to run a company analysing huge data sets concerning legal documents. (as it happens he was a chemist by training)

He said he used regular expressions and monte carlo techniques -- I haven't a clue about these things myself.

If you search and extracted text from a mega file of all TW posts based on code fragments, it would reduce the possibility of variation on spelling and would return  questions and answers with code. Maybe it could return threads.

You could then say something like: 

IF thread contains posts by Eric or Jeremy increase its value

Anyway ... we could do data science on our archive ... then bring TW in for individual managemenet and learning based on an archive which could gradually become more structured.

A metaphorical turn: the tiddlers swim in the sea of data, the tide constantly moves and sifts the data, washing it up on the shore. we can collect it when the tide goes out... 

Alex

https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/2646/extract-most-informative-parts-of-text-from-documents?rq=1

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/82a51382-bb2d-4d26-be57-b02c5ced5553%40googlegroups.com.

[Mohammad]

Seems very promising! 

I am thinking if it possible to retrieve and categorize the last 5 years where most of TW5 development occurred.

-Mohammad

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Its an interesting theme. Quite how you'd limit it to ALL but ONLY relevant posts is a pragmatic issue. 

Part of the issue is writing style in threaded posts may be harder to decipher than it may first appear.

On the one hand presenting everything would be likely too much. One the other hand a lot of posts explicitly need thread position to make sense and you could have issues with non sequiturs when you try get rid of redundancy.

Just thoughts

Josiah

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 14:03:32 UTC+1, Mohammad wrote:

Seems very promising! 

I am thinking if it possible to retrieve and categorize the last 5 years where most of TW5 development occurred.

 

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 4:13:59 PM UTC+3:30, AlexHough wrote:

I don't know... but perhaps it a data mining problem......

 

[Alex Hough]

you could extract top 5 contributors, top 10...

I was thinking, this is a "search and extract" function....

its like slicing only that it uses a search

digging into the links above brings us to automatic summarization, and extraction based summarization [1]

Ideas for extraction

1. Extract all TiddlySpot links (all posts which contain tiddlyspot.com)
   
2. all posts linking to Github
3. posts from Groups to Github issues / pull requests
4. all post which have attachments
5. for each macro 
6. widget, wikitext
   

How about this: extract search terms and from tiddlers in TW repo, search and extract from archieve

Alex

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_summarization#Extraction-based_summarization

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/8a81c558-9522-4324-a8c8-ef163a1921a1%40googlegroups.com.

[bimlas]

Sorry, for bumping old thread, but:

How about using GitHub or GitLab (example https://gitlab.com/pages/plain-html/issues?scope=all&state=closed) issues?

Must haves would include:

Searchable by title (not just by text content)

You can use the expressions "in:title local NOT image ", "author:bimlas", etc on GitHub (https://help.github.com/en/articles/searching-issues-and-pull-requests#search-by-the-title-body-or-comments) and similars on GitLab (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/search/#issues-and-merge-requests-per-project and https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/search/advanced_search_syntax.html#using-the-advanced-syntax-search)

 

Accessibility (the site is very hard for me to use, the clutter of having the three columns is a problem, the conversation structure is a problem for me reading it, not being able to change the styling on the page makes it hard for me to read)

It has responsive design.

 

Publicly viewable posts

Right.

 

A concise and easily viewable list of recent posts, preferably with an indicator of if I have seen each post or not

Well... The notifications could be your inbox... :S  and you can get them as e-mails (if feature is turned on). There is some highlighting here, but it is not clear why the first issues are highlighted: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?page=3&state=opened

I prefer GitLab because you can sign in with GitHub, Google, Twitter and even other accounts.

The advantage above the Google Group is that, for example

• if we talk about improving foobar in the documentation, we can do it right away and a link to that change will automatically appear in the conversation.
• it has syntax highlighting for code snippets
• you can upload any files wihtout the need of renaming them
• it has way more better search (I find it ironic that a Google product has such a poor quality search "engine")

[A Gloom]

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 8:01:13 AM UTC-5, Mohammad wrote:

As most of you know many forums use a kind of online playground for prototyping their answers using codepen, jsfiddle, or similar tools ...

Very good idea--  people already having online TW's for plugin's, guides, etc-- like you have with TWScripts-- could do such while we wait on a community use test bed TW.

I really need to get my WikiWichery testbed wiki up somewhere...

[Mohammad]

Good idea!
Is it possible to mimic the codepen or JSFiddle for TW there? I am not sure but with the advent of GitHub-TW Socket recently introduced by Jeremy, is it possible to have a runing version of TW on the cloud to have a Codepen like TW page for solution are given to questions?

--Mohammad