Thank you for the input, Evan. (01)
All: I made one more change -- in order not to have a totally unwieldy
page 5 years down the road, I decided to break that up into chunks of
one year's calendar per page.
See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?RelevantEventsOfInterest (02)
as well as ...
Regards. =ppy (04)
P.S. Note that I also made use of the "transclusion" feature (see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TransClusion) on the wiki to
the exercise to. =ppy
On 8/4/06, Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ewallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:55:40 -0400 (EDT):
> >> You are right ... but save for having someone to reshuffle the page
> >> content, we only have TWO CHOICES ... assuming the page is going to
> >> grow, I think having newer events near the top is still more useful.
> >> (Assuming people look to them for submitting papers, register as early
> >> birds, ... etc. ... and not just to attend or look back as historical
> >> records.)
> > It really depends on what you had in mind for this page. If it is
> > to contain only future events (which is what I had thought the intent)
> > then I believe it is *more* useful to have later events further down in
> > the list (this represents the perspective of where we are in time now,
> > looking forward). If you intend to leave events that have occured in
> > the list as a historical record *then* I agree that reverse
> > chronological is a better ordering because you are mixing past and future
> > events and you need to pick one scheme for ordering (even though this
> > presents the perspective of an arbitrary time in the future, looking back).
> > The presence of the entry for the Protege conference implies that you
> > intend to leave entries on the list in perpetuity. I had thought that entry
> > was just an oversight. I would have put the history on a separate page
> > (although that is, of course, more work).
> Yes. The plan is to leave the content there for perpetuity.
> > The spectre of reshuffling the content shouldn't be the deciding factor.
> > The intended use of the page ought to be the driver. I can live with it
> > either way.
> True. We work on the Engelbart DKR (dynamic knowledge repository)
> line of thinking, and are using the collaborative work
> environment (archived mailing list, wiki and shared-file storage
> space) to capture the entire life-cycle memory and knowledge of
> the community.
> >> Appreciate your feedback. Try getting active with Ontolog again,
> >> please. We need you here.
> > I may pop in occasionally, but I don't have the time for much
> > participation.
> > -Evan
> Will look forward to that. Steve Ray has been suggesting some
> NIST-Ontolog-NCOR collaborative work in the near future.
> Therefore, I think we'll be working on something together fairly
> soon, hopefully!
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> -- (06)
Peter P. Yim wrote Aug 4, 2006 4:32 PM PDT:
> Evan Wallace wrote Aug 4, 2006 4:55 PM EDT:
>> [EW] Why reverse chronological order for *future* events?
> > It is quite counter intuitive.
> [ppy] You are right ... but save for having someone to reshuffle the
> page content, we only have TWO CHOICES ... assuming the page
> is going to grow, I think having newer events near the top is still
> more useful. (Assuming people look to them for submitting papers,
> register as early birds, ... etc. ... and not just to attend or look
> back as historical records.) (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)