[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
:zz: Conjoinment (was: User semantics for dimensions / sug'd guidelines
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: :zz: Conjoinment (was: User semantics for dimensions / sug'd guidelines
- From: Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:59:30 +0900
- Cc: ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <19981026160131.26504.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <Your message of "Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:52:22 EST." <3.0.6.32.19981026145222.007e2db0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
This "conjoinment" may be a good term. I have
been noticing that you generally want new dimensions
in pairs in just this way,
d.inside / d.contents
d.mark / d.marklist (tells what cells are part of
"the same mark")
various other examples I forget at the moment.
The other relations you mention--
> 1. Symmetric (positive and negative are the same, as you said)
> 2. Conjoined to other dimensions
> 3. Reflexive (A cell is considered to be related to itself)
> 4. Transitive (If A-B and B-C, then A is considered to be
> related to C even though there is no explicit link)
> 5. Disordered (I think this turns out to be the same as
> symmetric + transitive.)
... I'll have to think about.
"Transitive" means that ordering is important. See my paper
on Preflets (the long proposal for Slices, ca. July 15) for
a proposed way of representing transitive relations so that
slices can come and go with cells appearing and disappearing
consistently within that sequence.
I think 1 and 3 come from somewhere else
(as you see, I'm no mathematician) and may not
have meaning or relevance. Hey, I'm open--
>There were a couple of others I thought of, but my notebook is
>downstairs.
Uh-oh. You DEFINITELY are one of us.
Best, Ted
At 11:01 AM 10/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark-Jason--
>>
>> >If the existing contents system is going to work at all, users must be
>> >able to provide their own semantics for dimensions.
>>
>> Definitely!
>>
>> My intention (and I'm way behind) has been to provide
>> about sixteen predefined dimensions, and suggested guidelines
>> for how to extend.
>
>I hope you won't mind if I expand on my ideas a little.
>
>Your plan is for d.inside and d.contents to be closely related to each
>other, so that neither one has a real meaning without the other.
>
>Suppose I am using ZigZag, and I want to create my own pair of
>dimensions that are related int the same way that d.inside and
>d.contents are, to serve an analogous but separate purpose. For
>example, suppose I am doing a geneological chart, and I want to
>capture the idea of `ancestry'. I will have two dimensions, d.parent
>and d.sibling:
>
>
> A-B-C +--> d.parent
> | | |
> D E v d.sibling
>
>A is the parent of B, who is the sibling of D and the parent of C and E.
>
>As far as `ancestry' goes, this is almost exactly the way d.contents
>and d.inside work:
>
> A-B-C +--> d.inside
> | | |
> D E v d.contents
>
>A holds B and D, and B holds C and E, so that C and E are also
>considered to be inside of A.
>
>If I want ZigZag to be able to do appropriate computations with
>ancestor charts, I will need to be able to tell ZigZag that d.parent
>and d.sibling are associated dimensions, that they go together in the
>way that d.inside and d.contents do. In my notes I called this kind
>of association a `conjoinment'. (I think `conjoinment' is as
>absolutely awful name.) d.inside and d.contents are conjoined.
>
>Conjoinment is one of the kit items I was thinking about. When I
>create a new dimension, I should be able to say whether it is
>conjoined to other dimensions.
>
>Similarly, the chart above has exactly the same *meaning* as if I had
>built it this way:
>
> A-D +--> d.parent
> | |
> B-C v d.sibling
> |
> E
>
>I would like ZigZag to understand that. So when I create d.sibling, I
>would like a way to say `The order of the cells in a group doesn't
>matter, and positive and negative directions are the same.'
>
>This `disorderment' property is closely related to conjoinment, but I
>haven't figured out the details yet. `Disordered' is another item in
>the kit. When I create a new dimension, I should be able to say that
>in this dimension, the order of cells in a group is unimportant as
>long as they are all linked in a line. (I called a line of linked
>cells in one dimension a `pier', but maybe you have a different name
>for it.)
>
>> Interesting point. Except users might want to add some
>> meaning to the direction of a dimension whose general
>> meaning is predefined without direction.
>
>Just so. Dimensions express relations between things. In forming
>relations, they might have any, all, or none of the following properties:
>
> 1. Symmetric (positive and negative are the same, as you said)
> 2. Conjoined to other dimensions
> 3. Reflexive (A cell is considered to be related to itself)
> 4. Transitive (If A-B and B-C, then A is considered to be
> related to C even though there is no explicit link)
> 5. Disordered (I think this turns out to be the same as
> symmetric + transitive.)
>
>There were a couple of others I thought of, but my notebook is
>downstairs.
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information
Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
Home Fax from USA: 011-81-466-46-7368 (If in Japan, 0466-46-7368)
Professorial home page http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/
_____________________________________________________
Permanent: Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965
Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/332-0136
http://www.xanadu.net
PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________________________________
Quotation of the day, 98.10.28:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible." Albert Einstein