human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (03/03/85)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers> HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 3 Mar 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Responses to Queries - Network Directories & Information on Xerox NoteCards, Computer Networks - Stargate (2 msgs), Computers and People - Re: Interesting Net Anecdotes, Information - Message Systems Symposium Announcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 February 85 13:23 EST From: RMXJITRY%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley Subject: Re: Request for informatio Originally sent from: RMXJITRY@CORNELLA Originally sent to: VINCE.FULLER@CMU-CS-C.ARPA Hi, Have you tried asking NIC @ SRI-NIC.ARPA They maintain the ARPAnet Network Information Desk - so they should have what you are looking for. -- Gligor Tashkovich RMXJITRY%CORNELLA.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 85 17:41 PST From: Halasz.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Information on Xerox NoteCards To: Info-Mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, AIList@SRI-AI.ARPA This description of the Xerox NoteCards system is a response to inquiries that have recently appeared on several Arpanet discussion lists. A. Background: NoteCards is part of an ongoing research project in the Intelligent Systems Lab at Xerox PARC investigating "idea processing" tasks, such as interpreting textual information, structuring ideas, formulating arguments, and authoring complex documents. The NoteCards system provides an on-line environment for carrying out this research. The principal reasearchers involved in this project are Frank Halasz, Tom Moran, and Randy Trigg. NoteCards is implemented in Interlisp-D and runs on the Xerox 1108 family of Lisp processors. B. The System: NoteCards is intended primarily as an idea structuring tool, but it can also be used as a fairly general database system for loosely structured information. The basic object in NoteCards is an electronic note card containing an idea-sized unit of text, graphics, images, or whatever. Different kinds of note cards are defined in an inheritance hierarchy of note card types (e.g., text cards, sketch cards, query cards, etc.). On the screen, multiple cards can be simultaneously displayed, each one in a separate window having an underlying editor appropriate to the card type. Individual note cards can be connected to other note cards by arbitrarily typed links, forming networks of related cards. At present, link types are simply labels attached to each link. It is up to each user to utilize the link types to organize the note card network. Within a note card, a link is represented by a small, active icon. Clicking with the mouse in the icon, retrieves the target card and displays it on the screen. NoteCards includes a filing mechanism built around a special type of card called a FileBox. In each FileBox are filed (i.e., linked by a Filing link) zero or more note cards as well as zero or more other FileBoxes. FileBoxes serve as a kind of categorization hierarchy for filing note cards by "topics". Browser cards contain node-link diagrams (i.e., maps) of arbitrary pieces of the note card network. Each node in a Browser's node-link diagram is an active icon that can be used to retrieve the indicated card. Spatially organized information is also available in the form of Sketch cards that allow the user to lay out line drawings, text, and link icons in an arbitrary, zoomable 2-D space. NoteCards is an environment that integrates several packages already available in the Interlisp-D system, e.g., TEdit, Grapher, and Sketch. NoteCards has a full programmer's interface. All of the functionality in NoteCards is accessible through a set of well-documented Lisp functions, allowing the user to create new types of note cards, develop programs that monitor or process the note card network, and/or integrate new Interlisp packages into the NoteCards environment. C. Research directions: NoteCards was designed primarily as a research vehicle. The following are some of the research topics that we are pursuing using the NoteCards system. 1) User tailorability -- a system description language that a non-programming user could edit in order to tailor the system to his or her task and/or interaction style. 2) Argumentation -- use of a "truth-maintenance" mechanism to help users develop and manipulate alternative argument structures. 3) Psychological issues -- investigations of the ways in which NoteCards does or does not support real-world tasks. 4) Visual summaries of large networks -- investigations of other ways to display network maps, including fish-eye graphs, trimmed graphs, 3D graphs, indented outline, etc. 5) Multi-window management -- investigations of various abstractions for building general multi-window management tools that take advantage of inter-card dependencies. 6) Querying networks of cards -- design of a querying interfaces that allow users to ask questions about the contents and structure of a network. 7) Multiple user, interlinked NoteFiles -- providing distributed/shared NoteFiles with links between different NoteFiles. 8) Alternative documents -- explore alternative document concepts, such as guided tours (i.e., suggested paths through a network of cards). 9) Text retrieval -- investigate several methods for doing text retrieval based on full-text search and statistical matching. 10) Object-oriented implementation -- we are investigating the possibility of rewriting NoteCards in Loops. D. How to get more info: A technical paper on Notecards is in progress. For information about the research issues surrounding NoteCards contact Halasz.pa@Xerox or Trigg.pa@Xerox. NoteCards is not at this time a Xerox product. However, Xerox Special Information System's Vista Laboratories offers a limited licensing agreement aimed at distributing NoteCards to groups doing related research (Contact: NoteCardsInfo.pasa@Xerox) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 14:57:19 PST From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@rand-unix> Subject: more on Stargate I said I wasn't going to discuss this here, so I'll just say the following. ALL of the points that people are bringing up have already been hashed out in excruciating detail over on Usenet. The issues involving moderation revolve around a number of very complex topics, including (but not limited to): 1) Resource allocation -- The bandwidth of the satellite channel is limited. There wouldn't be the room to send all the stuff from the growing Usenet for long even if it were completely legal or we wanted to. 2) Info and Costs -- The quality of material on Usenet has been going downhill rapidly as more and more people have joined in. Short, meaningless messages, long repetitious messages that include the full text of other long messages only to add a one line "I agree" at the end, personal attacks, possibly libelous or copyrighted materials, etc. More and more people have been dropping more and more newsgroups since they don't have the time to wade through all the muck to find an occasional gem. People would have to pay something for Stargate (as they pay for Usenet phone calls now). Many major sites are fed up with paying many, many thousands of dollars for junk and would appreciate the option of instead subscribing to something with a bit higher quality. Those of you who only know how things work on ARPANET don't know how bad things can get in a gigantic, almost totally unmoderated forum like Usenet which is undergoing uncontrolled and explosive growth--and where virtually every message that every user posts to netnews goes to ALL sites. 3) Liability issues are not clear. The telco model is not appropriate -- broadcasting models appear closer to the mark. Given that there is no way with the current Usenet to authenticate the author of a message, the responsibility goes back to the entity making the postings possible. Lawyers who have looked into these issues have noted that while there are a number of possibilities, it is unclear how things might finally turn out. In the meantime, nobody associated with the project has the money to get into court battles that would almost certainly be appealed by the losers to higher and higher courts--so that sorta lets out trying to get definitive rulings regarding communications responsibility from this project. Court battles in that area will wage on for years. Let some entity with lots of bucks and lawyers fight that out. While they're at it, they can fight out peripheral issues such as whether or not public key cryptosystems represent legal user authentication in all cases. In the meantime, my own opinion is that Stargate should be run something like a publishing operation. Just as any newspaper, magazine, or newsletter takes responsibility (and takes suitable precautions) for what they print, this might be the model for an operational "service" (right now we have a "simple" experiment, not a service). It is the price that is paid to publish meaningful and useful information instead of an endless stream of random and repetitious writings, from anyone and everyone who wants to see their name in print in front of lots of people. Even the ARPANET digest moderators are taking on some responsibility. Of course, these nets have pretty low visibility right now, but something like a Stargate Service would have much higher visibility and thus be a much more likely target for people disturbed over the content of transmitted materials, regardless of the actual legal liability issues. All of the factors above are important and must be considered when looking at this topic. I will now fade out of this discussion in this list. I hope. --Lauren-- P.S. An interesting situation (purely addressing the liability issue) is computer BBS's. While the recent MOG-UR case was dropped, it appears that the people who think this represents some sort of general "victory" for anyone are probably mistaken. The case was dropped by the prosecution (reluctantly) since it was only based on a single offending message. It appears likely that cases will still be filed if there is a pattern of abusive messages. They just didn't have enough evidence in the PARTICULAR case under discussion. There are also some other interesting cases already underway, including one involving BBS's being used by anonymous Neo-Nazis for various purposes. Both Canada and the U.S. are involved in this latter case, which once again addresses complex liability issues that will take many years to straighten out. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 26 February 85 18:11 EST From: RMXJITRY%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley Subject: (copy) mail volume, etc. Originally sent from: RLK@MIT-OZ Originally sent to: RMXJITRY@CORNELLA Date: Tuesday, 26 February 1985, 15:53-EST From: Robert L. Krawitz <RLK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: mail volume, etc. To: info-nets%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA I've received a fair number of replies to my inquiry about mail volume. Here are my conclusions. 1) There are a fair number of people who do in fact have problems with mail volume. There are lots of us who don't, but I think that as a matter of courtesy we try respect the needs of the entire list. 2) Most people are not in favor of a digest (those that have responded, anyway). Some people just don't like digests, some can't undigestify them. It seems to be bitnet people who have the most problems; can anyone on bitnet undigestify messages? (Can anyone run a digest?) 3) Most people seem to like the idea of people voluntarily restricting their mail. The problem here is individual cooperation. My responses to the problem are: 1) I personally like the idea of people voluntarily reducing their output. I am willing to meet them halfway by collecting all all inquiries and batch-mailing them to the list, say, every week. They won't be in digest format, so you'll just have to look through them somehow if you want to answer questions. This would be a special mailbox, say info-nets-inquiries, and I'd just mail the accumulated mail file every week and delete it, making no promises. 2) I particularly find distasteful the repeated mailing of requests (such as happens occasionally). What I think happens is that the original inquiry doesn't show up in someone's mailbox as quickly as s/he thinks it should, and impatiently remails the inquiry. This is very thoughtless. Mail sometimes is slow, say when oz or mc goes down (which isn't that infrequently). 3) I urge people not to reply to inquiries to the entire list, unless they are things that are of interest to the entire list, or a significant fraction thereof. Specifically, replies of the form "Here's how to mail to site foo on net bar". Just reply to the sender. 4) Please don't send mail of a general flamy nature to this list. There is another list that specializes in flamage about networks called human-nets (requests to human-nets-request@rutgers.arpa). No one ever gave me permission to give out that, but I doubt anyone will care too terribly much. That includes things such as is it politically the right thing to restrict access, etc. Comments should be addressed to info-nets-request. I hope that people will think seriously about this, as I don't like to see people forced to leave because of excessive, unnecessary mail volume. Robert Krawitz info-nets-request@mit-mc ------------------------------ From: Eugene Miya <eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA> Date: 1 Mar 1985 1720-PST (Friday) Subject: Thank you, note I would like to thank those members of the Usenet and human-nets-digest who respond to my posting for interesting network stories. Today I was informed by my Division chief that approval of my invitation to China was turned down. The justification was that the benefit to NASA did not match the cost. I was invited on an office automation delegation whereas NASA's chief engineer was invited on a space delegation [note: OA is not my area of research, I only have an interest]. In my place, because of this newsgroup, Doug Englebart and his wife are able to attend. Doug has had a long standing interest in China, and because a fellow mutual friend give my net address to Doug, he received a special invitation. An interesting net story in itself. I will pass the information I have collected on to Doug if he wants it. Meanwhile, I have to scramble to get an abstract to the Cray User Group meeting ... in Stockholm... in my research area, cheaper and easier to justify. Thanks again. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center emiya@ames-vmsb {hplabs,ihnp4,hao}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 25-Feb-85 22:45 PST From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> Subject: The Second International Symposium On Computer Message Subject: Systems Announcement The following was reproduced (without permission) from an outline sent to the IFIP Working Group 6.5 members from: Ronald P. Uhlig Northern Telecom, Inc. 2100 Lakeside Boulevard Richardson, Texas 75081 USA If you are interested in submitting a paper, please send the proposed title and proposed authors to Mr. Uhlig, ASAP. Full papers for review will be require no later than 15 April 1985. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The Second International Symposium On Computer Message Systems will be held in Washington, D.C., 4-6 September 1985. Since the first symposium, held in Ottawa, Canada in 1981, very significant progress has been made in the field of message systems. In 1981, IFIP Working Group 6.5 had just defined a basic mail/messaging model. The X.400 series of standards for Message Handling Systems (MHS), based on the IFIP Model, has now been developed by CCITT, and comparable standards have emerged from ISO. This has opened up the possibility of creating a worldwide network of interconnected message systems. Many new systems, both public and private have come into being since 1981, and the electronic mail industry is growing rapidly. On going work in IFIP, CCITT, ISO, and other bodies in Directory Services, Document Exchange, and other areas promise to make MHS and the new standards even more important in the future. Since we are now entering a new era in electronic mail, the time is right to hold a major international symposium on Message Systems. The purpose of the symposium is to exchange information, discuss technical, economic, and legal issues, and explore impacts of message systems on the people and organizations which use them. Papers are desired in the following topic areas: Interconnection of Computer Based Message Systems (CBMS) Interconnection of Public & Private Message Systems Interworking among systems following standards Interworking between existing systems and new systems Interworking of CBMS and Telematic Services Interworking with TWX/Telex and physical delivery Document & Message Architectures Document Structuring: Revisable forms and final forms Document Interchange & Document Content Conversion Message Exchange Protocols Message Content Protocols Voice Messaging Integrated voice and text messaging Multimedia CBMS Multimedia Message (Data, Voice and Image) Graphics vs. Facsimile in messages Multimedia Message Workstations Multimedia Message standards and protocols Interworking of multimedia systems with single media systems Multimedia message demands on subnetworks Message content conversion (voice<-->text) Use of MHS Standards as a Foundation for Other Services Message Systems as base for distributed office system applications Extensions to MHS, e.g. Conferencing, Electronic Publishing, Business Data Interchange ... Vertical CBMS Applications Industry specific standards Electronic Funds Transfer Applications in transportation, law, medicine and travel Directory Services, Naming and Addressing Public Policy Issues In Computer Messaging Privacy, Confidentiality, Authentication and Security Legal Status of CBMS Social and Behavioral Impacts of Message Systems Impacts on Developing Nations Corporate/Organizational Messaging Systems Multinational private message systems Internal corporate standards and strategy Efficiency and Cost/Benefit Impact on Administration and Management User Environment User Interface Issues Message Editing Messaging for the Handicapped Human Factors Integration with Office Automation Tools CBMS Implementations & Experiments Experiments and Evaluation of P1, P2, & P3 protocols New Products and Services CBMS as an Industry Microeconomics Macroeconomics Industry projections--domestic & international Other topics relevant to Computer Based Message systems will receive full consideration. PROGRAM CHAIRMAN: Ronald Uhlig -- USA PROGRAM VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard Miller -- USA ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************