#push [[michael toomim]] recognizing entities/short names in [[mastodon]], [[jonny saunders]]'s work on [[wiki bot]] and dumping to [[semantic media wiki]].
[[summarized knowledge]] “if researchers are lucky, they might come across a published synthesis that is both on topic, with sufficient coverage, and up to date”
[[process]] of constructing new [[knowledge]]
the latter as larger question
[[needs]]
under-developed, but cites [[the handbook of science and technology]]
(wow, nice numbered sections/index on this site)
[[ways to work with materials]]
shift from [[publication]] to a finer level of granularity
(had to take a toilet break here!)
[[write in a scientific way]]
missed because of the above, will read
[[ways to navigate complexity]]
idem
[[pooja upadhyay]]
miro map of [[processes]], [[nuances]] and [[tools]] supporting these processes (!)
understand literature, conversation, science research: the [[discourse graph]]
we have seen [[discourse graphs]]… but not many for some reason.
most of us have not taken it beyond an individual graph level
one implementation: [[roam research discourse graph]]
[[universal federation of discourse graphs]] ~ [[united federation of discourse graphs]]
[[naming]] is necessary for querying
want to implement a particular data model which is documented in the wiki proper
they mention the [[agora]] (!)
#push [[agora protocol]]
#meta [[question]] [[claim]] tagging looks very nice
stage two of the journey: [[the abyss]]
we’re reimplementing so much per tool, why don’t we just rely on mediawiki?
but what we’re trying to really build here is a [[process]], a [[pattern language]]
[[karola kirsanow]] rocks
[[kyle m]]
goal for the weekend: work with [[discourse graphs as data]]
new to [[sparql]] but is adding a [[tools]] section to the wiki
will document how to do [[rdf]] -> [[json jd]] -> [[mathematica]] -> [[querying]]
[[konrad hinsen]]
[[federated future]]
tried annotating on [[mediawiki]] and felt [[friction]]
writing tools that enable better annotation during and after writing
how can we collaborate on the same graphs and representations given our diversity of backgrounds, the different tags/terminology we’d use?
[[agora]]
[[everything2]]
[[massive wiki]]
[[metasj]]
on [[naming]] and [[scope]]
it starts with: why are we doing this? which kind of discourse would be like to support?
we’re doing this so that people working on compatible ideas can find each other and each other’s arguments
priority; getting a few hundred discourse graphs, examples of questions that have been answered this way, which of course supports short and long form hypotheses
in an example, as we were trying to sketch out a discourse in the wiki, we did this at the level of section headers
advantages of systems that support [[transclusion]]
[[short hand is used in large contexts]]
[[deniz aydemir]]
joined late but would like to point out a few salient points
konrad mentioned that we need to remember the user perspective, how to meet the user where they are
[[karola kirsanow]]
call out: if you can annotate your notes with [[discourse graph]] tools, please do so and we’ll try to work on integrating :)
Potential feature requests for discourse graph schemas, qualifiers/properties/parameters for distinguishing kinds of connections. Where are current discussions happening?
[[silvia bessa]] would people like to participate in a second edition of this, maybe physically?