Representation can appear in a document using many different kinds of Artifacts DonaldNoyes.20110604
This is not a new concept, as documents, books and articles have been represented in other documents and Artifacts for a long time. Using this concept in relation to computers opens a wide range of possibilities ranging from marking similar to footnotes to that of using images, buttons and other visual artifacts as indicators and access points.
Wiki introduced a new idea: That documents can be represented by the use of a CompoundWord? known as a WikiWord. In a Wiki, this representation is used a a name of a page contained within it. Provision is also made in most wikis for ExternalReferences? via the http protocol. Since a wiki as first introduced in WardsWiki uses the InternetBrowser as the presentation and display device, the document representation has the form of html documents.
The use of CompoundWords? need not be limited to use in Wikis or WikiLikeThings?, as they can be used in other InformationStorageScenarios? as well. One scheme proposes the use of the CompoundWords? in a SystemOfNames which are contained in a WordRegistrationIndex?. This index can be localized, within a single scenario or in a scenario grouping, or universal as in some sort of CentralizedRepository?. Some wikis even organize these words in a TitleIndex? or other such index of contained pages.
In modern IDEs the displayed progam source contains DocumentRepresentatives for the source documents implied by identifiers in the source. A variable reference is a 'link' to the corresponding variable declaration, which may reside in another document. The hierarchical structure of programming languages shows that a DocumentRepresentative must also be a hierarchival concept. A DocumentRepresentative may contain more specific DocumentRepresentatives. Compare this to anchors ("#") in html. Also remember that a DocumentRepresentative may be viewed in different ways in different contexts. A programming language definition may refer to binary (compiled) program code (e.g. Java class files), which may better be shown as equivalent source. -- GunnarZarncke
[The compound word is a kinda clumsy means of creating a link to some other document. We use it here on the C2 because we're all geeks anyway, and the idiom is familiar to us. In other venues the use of compound words just looks like stuff squished together. (Sorta like Sarah Palin talking. Heh.) It is awkward for non-geekoids to read and use.
So, there are alternative means by which links can be attached to straight text in documents. (Note that this is a "normal" part of "normal" markup, and you don't have to use SGML for it.) Every modern word processing editor has a mechanism for highlighting some portion of text and attaching a link to that. Seamonkey has it, as does any other HTML editor, and even el cheapo text editors like Programmer's Notepad have this feature.
The use of an automated scheme to add links to straight text based on the format of the wording is unique to Wiki. It isn't needed when we get away from this venue into the wider world of documents and documentation. Eh? -- MartySchrader]
In the world of personally organized and personally used information, I find representation both useful and concise, Whether it appears in a Wiki, a document, programming source code, a footnote, or anywhere else, and however it becomes a representative, as a compound word, symbol, visual control, hyperlinked construction, or when used as a means of making the tag, label, or gizmo reachable. Above all, I find ItWorks for me.
Yes. Right. For you. That is the precise point. Any kind of document created for your exclusive use can be formatted or linked anydamnway you like. But in the wider realm of sharing documents - and, more generally, the information contained therein - we need to bow to the needs of a diverse audience. In this context, we need to be aware of what readers need to see and how they need to see it so that they can absorb it, share it, contribute to it, and overall use it. In this context, a more generalized scheme for linking info makes better sense, n'est-ce pas?
I do not create information bases for my own exclusive use. My intentions are to share, not only documents and links to documents, but the thinking and processes used to create, maintain, and extend the document's usefulness to others. I have openly and sometimes awkwardly presented the thinking for public view and comment in my ThinkingOutLoude? series of pages, here and elsewhere. ItWorks for me is a statement intended to mean the method has passed my test of UsefulUsableUsed. It does not mean it only works in an exclusive way. The way I make and use Document Representation utilizes four programs, written by others, universally available: AdobeAcrobat, OneNote, PaperPort, and an Internet Browser (In my case Microsoft InternetExplorer). These are not exclusive, and are widely used, continuously used, and easily understandable and useful. They use as a common base or starting point the universal InternetDocument. -- DonaldNoyes
Okay. If you are using the universal hyperlink document model as your baseline sharing mechanism then there already exists a vast array of composition and editing tools, viewers, data mining extractors, etc. Is there some new phunk-shunality you wish to introduce to this realm? Is there something about XHTML that you find lacking? It already has all the data type expansion and active linking you could shake a stick at. What more does there need to be? What would that look like?
What needs to be is more relevant, personally and corporately constructed and shared documents. They would look like just what you wanted and needed, but did not have the time to construct and share all by yourself, because of finite resource of time and machinery. The DocumentRepresentative exists to make concise and collectable vast amounts of related material and desirable information with just a few strokes on the keyboard, and/or a few clicks of the mouse.
Further it would look like it is well and completely organized with the highest functionality and widest scope possible.
Forgive me, Donald, but this sounds like a PipeDream. Simplicity of creation and sophistication of presentation are mutually exclusive attributes. Organization and information linkage don't just happen by themselves; there is a great deal of effort expended by somebody to get this stuff indexed and linked up so that users can find what they need and use what they find. How do you propose we create the tools that will do all this for us with a few strokes of the keyboard or clicks of the mouse? I really don't see it. This sounds a lot like IwantaPony.
Simplicity of creation and sophistication of presentation are mutually exclusive attributes???