Wiki Is An Associative Store

An associative store associates a key with its related data.

Some real world examples are dictionaries, encyclopedias, phone books, and library card catalogs to name just a few.

WikiIsNotaDictionary... agreed. Since a WikiWord is a combination of two or more regular words, the diction for these can more than likely be looked up in the common dictionary. However, Wiki is a definitionary. If it were not, it would serve little purpose. Why click on a WikiWord unless you were interested in what someone (or the community) thought the combination meant?

The database behind Wiki is an associative store, but Wiki is not its backing store; it's more than that.

I've intentionally not elaborated on "more", and thereby avoided approaching definition of Wiki. Still, this page has meaning and value (to some). Meanings are allowed to exist in the absence of definitions, and that's a feature, not a bug.

-- WaldenMathews

Note that the classical ISA relationship implies a superset operation. For example, "a dog is a canine" or a "cat is a mammal". Yes, the Wiki is 'more' than an associative store as a dog is more than a canine.

Does not a meaning of or value of a name define it?

btw, WikiIsaGem has significantly more value than WikiIsNotaDump.

-- GeraldLindsly

There does not exist an x such that for all y ((x isa y) containsMoreMeaningThan (x isNotA y)). Though, for all y (if and only if((x isa y) containsMoreMeaningThan (not x isa y)) then ((the size of the intersection of (z where z isa x) and (Z where Z isa y)) isLessThan (the size of the intersection of (z where z isa x) and (Z where Z isNotA y)))).

Less pseudo-formally, the statements "has significantly more meaning than", "containsMoreMeaningThan" implied that the first is more specific than the second. As a counter example to assertions being more meaningful than negations, which contains more meaning "Wiki is a man-made artifact" or "Wiki is not a Dictionary"? Nearly universally in human speech, negations also act as assertions: saying "Wiki is not a dictionary" implies that it IS a member of the superset of dictionary "information storage medium". If this is a peculiarity of human language I am not sure. It seems quite universal to me, but I am a human after all.

-- MarkLuffel?

Oops. I don't quite get the full picture of your formal construction. Could I translate the semantics (meaning) like so:? ISA relationships normally point to more general classes. ISnotA relationships regularly lead to contradictions. Positive assertions grant more information to the reader. -- gl

Could not WikiWords themselves make relationships more explicit ie EverythingIsa already exists though it is more for fun, Category pages etc. But you could have a PartOf page listing things that are components of each other e.g. that VirtualMachine is PartOf JavaLanguage (except that it's not [ok HasA then that's the point...detail nuances]), detailing the nuances of the connection. RecentChanges is similar it links pages to time and author but such WikiWordRelationships? would be user defined.

The point is that the use of a WikiWord on a page indicates some sort of relationship or association. Where appropriate, the nature of the association can be given using specific semantic pointers (words). Unless the BackLinks function is upgraded to give the option to refine by LinkType?, there is marginal utility, generally, in formalising the concept. In the example given, the WikiWord JavaVirtualMachine provides the home for information about VirtualMachines in the context of JavaLanguage.

Yes but some words are more noun (objects, classes) than adjectives, verbs or prepositions (relations) I'm just thinking if there was a convention for distinguishing them at a glance it might be helpful. There's a reason CirclesBoxesAndArrows aren't all just circles. Yes you can parse the word, open it up, look at the context but that is not "at a glance".

It might be helpful. Why don't you try it and see if anyone begs you to stop. I'll just put a little placeholder here for the PleasePleaseDontAssociativelyOrganizeEveryPageOnWiki? debate... [LinkType?:PleasePlease?]

Far be it from me to try start a fad but isn't that part of (sorry PartOf AlignedWith?, InspiredBy?? Can't be PartOf just yet) the goal of the SemanticWeb - be more explicit about relations?

I meant it when I said: "try it and see". If people think it's useful, they'll try it too. If they don't, they'll suggest a preferable alternative (which may be leaving things as they are). My own view is that it has marginal utility, but I've been wrong many times before...

Please see http://www.wordnet.edu or http://www.wordnet.org The 2nd ref works for sure. Quite a compilation. I am currently working on some AI support for that database. It sure would be cool to download the Wiki and see how many of the WikiWords can be incorporated. WardCunningham may approve the content copy to that school. A "Diction"ary (pronunciation key) would be a valuable addition also. -- gl

Looks great 'cept I'm agnostic. However analysing various possible relations between mortals, spirits, deities, free will and creation in our worldviews may help us understand better the points on which we agree and disagree :-)

Or not. ItDepends on which we elevate: agreement or disagreement, collaboration or confrontation, harmony or discord, friendship or hostility. I for one prefer the first in each case.

CategoryWiki