Transclusion nomenclature conventions?
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Morris Gray
Nov 21, 2009, 3:04:57 AM11/21/09
to TiddlyWiki
I was wondering what the convention for naming various components that
could be used in transclusions.
1:You can have a script that does something. For instance it could be
used search for tagged tiddlers and return a list of those tiddlers.
It could be named GetTaggedTiddlers
2:In another tiddler possibly named ListMyTaggedTiddlers could be
invoked by <<tiddler GetTaggedTiddlers with: mytiddlers>>
3:Say you then had another script that used that list of tiddlers to
create a tiddler say, named MyBracketedList creating a hard coded list
of links for use with .readBracketedList()
The above is just off the top of my head it could get more complicated
and of course the scripts could all be in one tiddler under section
headings and some functions combined but I thought they should all
have names if standing alone.
Transclusion can be both a verb and a noun. So should we have names
like transclusion-script, transcluded, transcluder and even
transcludee (or even transcludette or El transcluder or La transcludee
for languages that use gender for such things:-)
All kidding aside it does become a problem when trying to write
instructions and explanations.
Eric combines author information (info), usage, variables and as
sections tiddler to display all of this information and tags it
transclusion.
However they could all be separate needing names and/or consolidated
to various degrees to make many nameless hybrids
Should we develop some convention before a defacto comes into being?
For note, template, macro, extension, plugin, tweak etc. While some of
us know the loosely agreed conventions many are used interchangeably
or completely wrong.
Morris
could be used in transclusions.
1:You can have a script that does something. For instance it could be
used search for tagged tiddlers and return a list of those tiddlers.
It could be named GetTaggedTiddlers
2:In another tiddler possibly named ListMyTaggedTiddlers could be
invoked by <<tiddler GetTaggedTiddlers with: mytiddlers>>
3:Say you then had another script that used that list of tiddlers to
create a tiddler say, named MyBracketedList creating a hard coded list
of links for use with .readBracketedList()
The above is just off the top of my head it could get more complicated
and of course the scripts could all be in one tiddler under section
headings and some functions combined but I thought they should all
have names if standing alone.
Transclusion can be both a verb and a noun. So should we have names
like transclusion-script, transcluded, transcluder and even
transcludee (or even transcludette or El transcluder or La transcludee
for languages that use gender for such things:-)
All kidding aside it does become a problem when trying to write
instructions and explanations.
Eric combines author information (info), usage, variables and as
sections tiddler to display all of this information and tags it
transclusion.
However they could all be separate needing names and/or consolidated
to various degrees to make many nameless hybrids
Should we develop some convention before a defacto comes into being?
For note, template, macro, extension, plugin, tweak etc. While some of
us know the loosely agreed conventions many are used interchangeably
or completely wrong.
Morris
Tobias Beer
Nov 21, 2009, 6:43:24 AM11/21/09
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Morris,
'El transcluder' ...giggles.
To the topic... I am not sure that there is a need for any special
conventions of sorts... other than the most basic idea of what
transclusion is or does ...unless you wanted to build some
transclusion-functions-library-or-framework around the concept of it,
e.g. some tiddler named MyTransclusionCollection containing...
!getA
<<tiddler ...
!!doBeee
<<tiddler...
!someHTML
<html>foo</html>
!standardOut
$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9
!someInlineScript
can't do it in google groups ;-)
!!!!!etc
pp
So, I think, this is rather a matter of taste and whatever it is that
you want to achieve with transclusion. In other words, I don't see
some special need of specification other than explaining in the __most
basic__ terms what transclusion is. So maybe it's less of an exercise
to hard-wire the idea of it, but instead to list all of what you
possibly can do with it... like in the examples above.
As for meaningful abstractions of codebits into standardized chunks...
that's not just an issue with transclusion, but - I guess - rather
your everyday struggle of what goes into where and possibly into what
is called 'the core'.
Tobias.
'El transcluder' ...giggles.
To the topic... I am not sure that there is a need for any special
conventions of sorts... other than the most basic idea of what
transclusion is or does ...unless you wanted to build some
transclusion-functions-library-or-framework around the concept of it,
e.g. some tiddler named MyTransclusionCollection containing...
!getA
<<tiddler ...
!!doBeee
<<tiddler...
!someHTML
<html>foo</html>
!standardOut
$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9
!someInlineScript
can't do it in google groups ;-)
!!!!!etc
pp
So, I think, this is rather a matter of taste and whatever it is that
you want to achieve with transclusion. In other words, I don't see
some special need of specification other than explaining in the __most
basic__ terms what transclusion is. So maybe it's less of an exercise
to hard-wire the idea of it, but instead to list all of what you
possibly can do with it... like in the examples above.
As for meaningful abstractions of codebits into standardized chunks...
that's not just an issue with transclusion, but - I guess - rather
your everyday struggle of what goes into where and possibly into what
is called 'the core'.
Tobias.
Morris Gray
Nov 21, 2009, 8:49:38 AM11/21/09
to TiddlyWiki
On Nov 21, 10:43 pm, Tobias Beer <tobib...@web.de> wrote:
> Hi Morris,
>
> 'El transcluder' ...giggles.
This depends on the the finesse of El Transcluder and the attitude of
> Hi Morris,
>
> 'El transcluder' ...giggles.
La Transcludee ;-)
In this rather vague description below of which I have transdelivered
(it is certainly not transquotation as described below) is not very
enlightening.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion
"Nelson defines transclusion as "the same content knowably in more
than one place", setting it apart from more special cases such as the
inclusion of content stored in a different location (which he calls
"transdelivery") or "explicit quotation which remains connected to its
origins" (which he calls "transquotation").
I am only talking about client-side. The methods I have been using
requires better definition.
By using a script to manipulate information from possibly several
different places, drawing with it things such as tiddler titles,
tiddler tags, and the tiddler content itself; then manipulating and
enhancing it in some way, then delivering it to another tiddler which
in turn becomes another function altogether requires some naming
convention for the component parts.
> ...unless you wanted to build some
> transclusion-functions-library-or-framework around the concept of it,
> e.g. some tiddler named MyTransclusionCollection
in an ad hoc way and now I'd like to give it structure. What I
described above could probably be called 'mashup'; but that's rather
too common, or the people who use it may be anyhow :-) I would like
these names to have dignity.
Perhaps I could call it jClusion. As one day it may have to be
considerd for inclusion (no pun intended) in the core.
I'm thinking transclusion is the end result, something that directs
the action the 'transcluder' and the result as the 'transcluded'
Trans... as a prefix is rich with a multitude of options so one
shouldn't become too transfixed with it lest we transform this
exercise into a 'misclusion' which I am thinking I will make it a
reserved word for trancluded errors.
I think I'll work on it, any suggestions or contributions are
welcome...
Morris
Tobias Beer
Nov 21, 2009, 1:30:30 PM11/21/09
to TiddlyWiki
I have (at least) two barriers with your request.
1) I can only imaginably understand your naming problem. So, do you
have any specific example which you can put up and ask: How in the
world would you describe what's going on in this case? ...so that we
can go and tag your things with words of our choice and (you) decide
(for yourself) which ones seem most suitable?
2) I think conventions as for structure should not be overly stressed
outside the core... in other words, they're very much depending on the
use-case. If what you're doing evolves into a complex functional
system in its own right... then those (terms for) sturctures will
surely follow as you just can't do without. However, I am not sure if
for such a partial aspect to work out well it requires the whole
tiddlyverse to be speaking the same language... that's just doesn't
seem to be how languages evolve ...whereas you use words ...and if you
find that noone understands your words, though you tried real hard to
explain yourself, they're likely to be forgotten quickly or in that
other case become tied into the expressive network of whatever
language you're dealing with.
I, personally, am perfectly fine with using 'transclusion' as a
propper verb and noun, such as...
*This is a transclusion of A into B.
*A is transcluded into B
*I am transcluding A into B
*B uses transclusion to pull in content from A via an inline script.
*I have a multi-level transclusion, which uses methods in (hidden)
sections of A to systematically pull different content elements and
output an aggregated summary into B
*ect...
So, again, maybe all that is required for this to be well communicated
you just need a basic idea of what those things are that you can do
with transclusion... so that you can imagine what someone else is
speaking of when talking about such.
Setting up meaningful relations via naming and tagging of tiddlers
doesn't seem to differ much for pojects involving transclusion as
opposed to, say, some general-content-tiddlywiki.
Tobias.
1) I can only imaginably understand your naming problem. So, do you
have any specific example which you can put up and ask: How in the
world would you describe what's going on in this case? ...so that we
can go and tag your things with words of our choice and (you) decide
(for yourself) which ones seem most suitable?
2) I think conventions as for structure should not be overly stressed
outside the core... in other words, they're very much depending on the
use-case. If what you're doing evolves into a complex functional
system in its own right... then those (terms for) sturctures will
surely follow as you just can't do without. However, I am not sure if
for such a partial aspect to work out well it requires the whole
tiddlyverse to be speaking the same language... that's just doesn't
seem to be how languages evolve ...whereas you use words ...and if you
find that noone understands your words, though you tried real hard to
explain yourself, they're likely to be forgotten quickly or in that
other case become tied into the expressive network of whatever
language you're dealing with.
I, personally, am perfectly fine with using 'transclusion' as a
propper verb and noun, such as...
*This is a transclusion of A into B.
*A is transcluded into B
*I am transcluding A into B
*B uses transclusion to pull in content from A via an inline script.
*I have a multi-level transclusion, which uses methods in (hidden)
sections of A to systematically pull different content elements and
output an aggregated summary into B
*ect...
So, again, maybe all that is required for this to be well communicated
you just need a basic idea of what those things are that you can do
with transclusion... so that you can imagine what someone else is
speaking of when talking about such.
Setting up meaningful relations via naming and tagging of tiddlers
doesn't seem to differ much for pojects involving transclusion as
opposed to, say, some general-content-tiddlywiki.
Tobias.
Morris Gray
Nov 21, 2009, 8:18:40 PM11/21/09
to TiddlyWiki
On Nov 22, 5:30 am, Tobias Beer <tobib...@web.de> wrote:
Hi Tobias,
Thank you for you very lucid delineation of the transclusion conundrum
the way you see it. It is very helpful. You are smarter than the
average Beer ;-)
> So, do you
> have any specific example which you can put up and ask: How in the
> world would you describe what's going on in this case?
I will in the fullness of time. However it may be presented as near
le fait accompli due to the magnitude of the various incarnations of
transclusion components; however, there will only be a handful of
words and if it goes beyond three or four a glossary may be provided
if found necessary:-)
> If what you're doing evolves into a complex functional
> system in its own right... then those (terms for) sturctures will
> surely follow as you just can't do without.
This is true, as necessity is the mother of invention.
> Setting up meaningful relations via naming and tagging of tiddlers
> doesn't seem to differ much for pojects involving transclusion as
> opposed to, say, some general-content-tiddlywiki.
It could differ because of the so-called 'non-linear' nature of
TiddlyWiki is already hard to grasp for the uninitiated. Transclusion
is not a common term, and in practice can create unusual relationships
that may be hard to track down if they are compounded. I'm already
having this problem and I'm designing it:-)
For some the construction of a TiddlyWiki for a particular application
becomes an end in itself and the application never gets completed as
they get caught in the vortex of TiddlyWiki versatility :-)
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com/#TiddlyWikiWoes
Your tabulation above of noun and verbs is a valuable starting place.
I may name something after you, some charming Beerism perhaps, or more
likely a transclusion-beer-break while one tries to figure out where
some transclusion came from or where-in-the-hell did that go?... :-)
Oh well, back to work...
Morris
Hi Tobias,
Thank you for you very lucid delineation of the transclusion conundrum
the way you see it. It is very helpful. You are smarter than the
average Beer ;-)
> So, do you
> have any specific example which you can put up and ask: How in the
> world would you describe what's going on in this case?
le fait accompli due to the magnitude of the various incarnations of
transclusion components; however, there will only be a handful of
words and if it goes beyond three or four a glossary may be provided
if found necessary:-)
> If what you're doing evolves into a complex functional
> system in its own right... then those (terms for) sturctures will
> surely follow as you just can't do without.
> Setting up meaningful relations via naming and tagging of tiddlers
> doesn't seem to differ much for pojects involving transclusion as
> opposed to, say, some general-content-tiddlywiki.
TiddlyWiki is already hard to grasp for the uninitiated. Transclusion
is not a common term, and in practice can create unusual relationships
that may be hard to track down if they are compounded. I'm already
having this problem and I'm designing it:-)
For some the construction of a TiddlyWiki for a particular application
becomes an end in itself and the application never gets completed as
they get caught in the vortex of TiddlyWiki versatility :-)
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com/#TiddlyWikiWoes
Your tabulation above of noun and verbs is a valuable starting place.
I may name something after you, some charming Beerism perhaps, or more
likely a transclusion-beer-break while one tries to figure out where
some transclusion came from or where-in-the-hell did that go?... :-)
Oh well, back to work...
Morris
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages