engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Adam C. Engst) (01/23/88)
I'm curious, is anyone actually using this group? I've been subscribed to it
for several months now and haven't noticed any traffic at all. Might this
perhaps be the first message?
Horrors!
--
Adam C. Engst engst@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
pv9y@cornella.bitnet
"If it's not interactive fiction, it's not fun."kateley@apple.UUCP (Jim Kateley) (01/24/88)
In article <3468@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> engst@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Adam C. Engst) writes: >I'm curious, is anyone actually using this group? I've been subscribed to it >for several months now and haven't noticed any traffic at all. Might this >perhaps be the first message? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ According to the mail header, yours is message #13 :-) :-) >-- >Adam C. Engst engst@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu > pv9y@cornella.bitnet >"If it's not interactive fiction, it's not fun." -- Jim Kateley Applelink: kateley1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!kateley CSNET: kateley@apple.COM Disclaimer: What I say, think, or smell does not reflect any policy or stray thought by Apple Computer, Inc.
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/24/88)
In article <3468@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Adam C. Engst) writes: > I'm curious, is anyone actually using this group? I've been subscribed to it > for several months now and haven't noticed any traffic at all. Might this > perhaps be the first message? According to our news software, your message is the twelfth message to arrive here in this group. I guess that makes me the unlucky thirteenth. There are, of course, many groups where the hype (pie in the sky application) of hypertext has been discussed. To approach the nitty-gritty details of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of. The first problem should be the simplest to solve. Curses gives one a fairly portable terminal interface that would allow text to be displayed in a manner permitting portions of the text to be pointed to and actions taken as a result thereof. Conventions for referencing other text pieces and storage/retrieval of same have been briefly discussed, but ultimately will be whatever the implementer decides to do. One would expect the basic unit of text to be what can comfortably be displayed on a normal terminal screen. [Obviously X windows or even GNU EMACS could be used as a basis for such an implementation at the cost of significantly restricting the number of people who could run the system.] The second problem, that of discussing what it means to organize information via a hypertext approach would appear to be much more difficult because it requires finding some set of information that is relatively accessible to a large portion of those interested. Unix man pages would seem ideal except for possible copyright problems. Some of the RFCs being distributed in comp.doc would seem promising. Both of these ideas presume that a common ground could be found in interest in computer system documentation. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
subraman@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ramesh Subramanian) (01/26/88)
I'm a PhD student specialzing in MIS at Rutgers Grad.Sch. of Management,
and am looking at Hypertext, especially at sub-areas like:
The nature of linkages,
Designing links from Cognitive Models,
Hypertext technology issues, and
Logical Data Modeling using Hypertext, with the idea of carving some
dissertation ideas. At the moment I'm looking for literature in the field,
in order to compile a bibliography. I'd appreciate if you could E-mail any
info. to me. Depending upon the response, I'll compile and post the list
on the net.
(I, too, am surprised at the strange lack of traffic in this nwsgrp).
******************************************************************************
Ramesh Subramanian
Email (UUCP): ...!rutgers!andromeda!subraman
Voice : (201) 565-9290
USmail: 101 Bleeker St. Box#85
Newark, NJ 07102.
******************************************************************************heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/26/88)
Since my LIB/newsgroups file doesn't contain an information line for the alt.hypertext newsgroup (although it does for some other alt groups), I can't say for sure, but perhaps it is perceived that alt.hypertext is not necessary given the existence of comp.sys.mac.hypercard, hmm? My apologies if that group is an inet-only group. As we have seen, any news administrator who is part of the "alt" net can create a new alt newsgroup pretty much at will. Perhaps some thought should be given to how to go about deleting an alt newsgroup. Or, maybe I should just issue an rmgroup on alt.hypertext, since this is an anarchy? Of course, since this is an "alt" group, where the participants couldn't care less about the total number of newsgroups, we don't need to worry about a group that isn't serving a useful purpose. :-) (Followups going to alt.config.) -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
wex@milano.UUCP (01/27/88)
In article <757@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > There are, of course, many groups where the hype (pie in the sky application) > of hypertext has been discussed. To approach the nitty-gritty details > of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext > and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of. > > The first problem should be the simplest to solve. Curses gives one a fairly > portable terminal interface that would allow text to be displayed in a manner > permitting portions of the text to be pointed to and actions taken as a result > thereof. YECCH! Going via a curses (or for that matter, any character-based terminal interface) is like putting training wheels on a 747. The point of a new technology is to move people forward, and bitmapped screens are no big deal. Further, they make it possible to insert marks (for link info) between characters, as well as making it easier to delineate regions of text. And while we're at it, let's not lose sight of the fact that much useful information doesn't exist in text form. A bitmapped screen allows graphics to be more naturally included in the hypermedia web. Lastly, in order to get a good idea of the layout of the web, one needs some kind of browser showing the nodes and links - MUCH easier to do on a bitmap (color can come in handy here too). I think a hypermedia system needs a bitmapped screen and a pointing device (mouse, joystick, touchscreen, etc) in order to have a hope of succeeding. > The second problem, that of discussing what it means to organize information > via a hypertext approach would appear to be much more difficult because > it requires finding some set of information that is relatively accessible > to a large portion of those interested. That's only part of the problem. The power of hypermedia lies in its organizational and referential capabilities. Any set of information that needs heavy crossreferencing is a good candidate for entry into a hypermedia web, especially if there are powerful search tools available for manipulating the web. The availability issue helps, but even if I'm the only one using the information, I can still benefit from hypermedia capabilities. -- --Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex The Pentagon has "fire and forget" systems; I have "file and forget."
baparao@uscacsc.usc.edu (K.V. Baparao) (01/28/88)
Is there a reason why the hypertext discussion group is named "alt.hypertext" as opposed to "comp.hypertext"? I was under the impression that the "alt" newsgroups were meant for "fringe" topics. --Bapa Rao.
smith@COS.COM (Steve Smith) (01/28/88)
In article <757@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >... To approach the nitty-gritty details >of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext >and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of. > ... >----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) A body of information to "hypertext"? You're looking at it! Seriously, net news has most of the attributes that would make a hypertext system valuable. Consider - news has *LOTS* of text (We ain't looking at toys, here) *LOTS* of machines Discussion threads with lots of branches backward references (on the References line above) forward references (given the original article, find this one) -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) (uunet!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/28/88)
[Summary: As quasi-group creator of alt.hypertext, below I am claiming that it was right to create the group and that it is now right to rmgroup the group and wait a week to see if anyone else feels strongly enough to want to create the group. It is probably best that the rmgroup come from the same place as the create, but in the face of an rmgroup from somewhere else, I would not be the one to request a new create in the forseeable future.] In article <3585@mcdchg.UUCP>, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: > Since my LIB/newsgroups file doesn't contain an information line for > the alt.hypertext newsgroup (although it does for some other alt groups), > I can't say for sure, but perhaps it is perceived that alt.hypertext > is not necessary given the existence of comp.sys.mac.hypercard, hmm? > My apologies if that group is an inet-only group. That group is not inet-only. alt.hypertext is needed IF anyone wanted to talk about hypertext or hypermedia in general. To say that such discussion should go to comp.sys.mac.hypercard is like sayinng that comp.arch discussion should go to comp.sys.sun . > As we have seen, any news administrator who is part of the "alt" net can > create a new alt newsgroup pretty much at will. Perhaps some thought > should be given to how to go about deleting an alt newsgroup. Or, maybe > I should just issue an rmgroup on alt.hypertext, since this is an anarchy? > Of course, since this is an "alt" group, where the participants couldn't > care less about the total number of newsgroups, we don't need to worry > about a group that isn't serving a useful purpose. :-) The main reason rmgroup doesn't work in Usenet is that there are too many sites running on autopilot from bi-wing days. That should not be the case on alt net. With the exception of the last flurry of response to the question of whether or not the group was around, alt.hypertext has been inactive since a week after its creation. The group was created by pleasant@rutgers.edu in response to my request for a group to discuss hypertext in general as opposed to the mac product. Although I still feel such a discussion would be interesting, it seems to lack posters (although not readers). I PROPOSE THAT WE RMGROUP THE GROUP WITH A REQUEST TO WAIT FOR A WEEK TO LET THE RMGROUP SETTLE. THEN IF SOMEONE ELSE FEELS THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE ALT.HYPERTEXT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO. Mel, will you do the honours? > (Followups going to alt.config.) I disagree that the followup should restrict to alt.config. The notion of deleting the group is clearly of interest to the readers of the group. >From: baparao@uscacsc.usc.edu (K.V. Baparao) Message-ID: <353@uscacsc.usc.edu> >Is there a reason why the hypertext discussion group is named "alt.hypertext" >as opposed to "comp.hypertext"? I was under the impression that the "alt" >newsgroups were meant for "fringe" topics. comp.hypertext presumes following usenet procedures to secure backbone approval whereas alt.hypertext does not. It is up to the people who don't get alt.hyptertext, but want it, to either find an alt feed or create an analogous comp group. It's placement among the different hierarchies has nothing to do with the subject but only with the inclinations of the person interested in creating a discussion. Welcome to the world of alternate news hierarchies. ------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/29/88)
In article <870@cos.COM>, smith@COS.COM (Steve Smith) writes: > In article <757@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >... To approach the nitty-gritty details > >of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext > >and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of. > A body of information to "hypertext"? You're looking at it! Seriously, > net news has most of the attributes that would make a hypertext system > valuable. Consider - news has ... The connection of articles in news is unclear (the links established by the default news software are generally bogus due to the fact that so few users actually have software that lets them use these links effectively that they don't bother maintaining them). At 2.5 meg a day, a hypertexted version of usenet is a bit large to post into this group for discussion. While these issues are fun to contemplate, I think something more restricted is actually capable of implementation and experimentation. But if you would rather talk pie-in-the-sky toys and wasting hypertext database room with graphics (did apple really write hypercard as a ploy to sell more hard disks?), feel free. Even such discussion there has been precious little of in this group. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
sdp@zeus.hf.intel.com (Scott Peterson) (01/30/88)
In article <757@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > [ ... ] To approach the nitty-gritty details >of hypertext, we seem to lack two things: a common implementation of hypertext >and a body of information to contemplate the hypertexting of. How about net news? It's a nasty problem, but it would force us to think about some issues that might gratly improve a general hypertext system. Links across machines, links to archives, links to private documents/email, and version control being just a few. It would certainly make news more usable, virtually eliminating messages like "please define {MOTAS,HASA,ST:TNG}", etc (presumably via links to archives). [ .. ] >The second problem, that of discussing what it means to organize information >via a hypertext approach would appear to be much more difficult because >it requires finding some set of information that is relatively accessible >to a large portion of those interested. Unix man pages would seem ideal >except for possible copyright problems. Some of the RFCs being distributed >in comp.doc would seem promising. Both of these ideas presume that a common >ground could be found in interest in computer system documentation. I don't see a problem in publishing links for the UNIX man pages, just don't transmit the pages. To me this seems similar to the practice of posting diffs to the kernel code to the net. In article <6030@milano.UUCP> wex@milano.UUCP writes: >YECCH! Going via a curses (or for that matter, any character-based >terminal interface) is like putting training wheels on a 747. The >point of a new technology is to move people forward, and bitmapped >screens are no big deal. Further, they make it possible to insert >marks (for link info) between characters, as well as making it easier >to delineate regions of text. Graphic interfaces have demonstrated superiority, however there are a lot of people who don't have them. If "the point of new technology is to move people forward ...", then it doesn't make sense to totally ignore the text-only world. >I think a hypermedia system needs a bitmapped screen and a pointing >device (mouse, joystick, touchscreen, etc) in order to have a hope of >succeeding. I think I can get by without them (at some reduced level of functionality).
sdp@zeus.hf.intel.com (Scott Peterson) (01/30/88)
In article <772@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >hypertext in general as opposed to the mac product. Although I still feel >such a discussion would be interesting, it seems to lack posters (although >not readers). I PROPOSE THAT WE RMGROUP THE GROUP WITH A REQUEST TO >WAIT FOR A WEEK TO LET THE RMGROUP SETTLE. THEN IF SOMEONE ELSE FEELS >THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE ALT.HYPERTEXT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO. Mel, will >you do the honours? > I don't think a couple of weeks is enough time for a new group to get up to speed. Maybe you should wait a while longer before giving it the axe. Scott Peterson OMSO Software Engineering Intel, Hillsboro OR sdp@sdp.hf.intel.com uunet!littlei!foobar!sdp!sdp Can you run fsck on your brain?
sdp@zeus.hf.intel.com (Scott Peterson) (01/30/88)
In article <775@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > [ ... ] >The connection of articles in news is unclear (the links established >by the default news software are generally bogus due to the fact that >so few users actually have software that lets them use these links >effectively that they don't bother maintaining them). At 2.5 meg a day, >a hypertexted version of usenet is a bit large to post into this group for >discussion. While these issues are fun to contemplate, I think something >more restricted is actually capable of implementation and experimentation. > [ ... ] Converting the format of news to support links is clearly not the solution then. Last I heard, the people at MCC opted for links maintained external to the text files in their PlaneText system. I think they did it so you could link to source code. This must make version control a little difficult (edit the file too extensively, and the system can't figure out from context where the links are supposed to point). One option is to put out links in the header. In links could be added to the header by a utility run after news was unbatched. The news reader (presumably we'd need a new news reader anyway) would have to be smart enough to sense when new in links had been added to already-read articles. New in links to dead articles would have to be tossed, I guess (not so bad really - if news volume could be reduced by using links instead of quoting news wouldn't have to be expired so soon). In my humble opinion, adding links to netnews is not that difficult (there should be a big 'theoretically' in there somewhere). That is, when you compare it to the task of adding links to email, and other private documents. News articles are already serialized, and they can't be edited. Scott Peterson OMSO Software Engineering Intel, Hillsboro OR sdp@sdp.hf.intel.com uunet!littlei!foobar!sdp!sdp Can you run fsck on your brain?
deh0654@sjfc.UUCP (Dennis Hamilton) (02/03/88)
In article <772@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >[Summary: As quasi-group creator of alt.hypertext, below I am claiming >that it was right to create the group and that it is now right to >rmgroup the group and wait a week to see if anyone else feels strongly >enough to want to create the group. . . . >. . . I PROPOSE THAT WE RMGROUP THE GROUP WITH A REQUEST TO >WAIT FOR A WEEK TO LET THE RMGROUP SETTLE. THEN IF SOMEONE ELSE FEELS >THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE ALT.HYPERTEXT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO. . . . >------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) No, No, don't do that. You over-estimate the speed with which alt.hypertext has become known across the net and attracted attention. For example, we haven't seen anywhere nearly as many messages here as they have in Cupertino, and it took the query about whether the group even existed to start filling the article directory here. So you haven't really determined the interest level. Also, I'm not even sure that alt.config is present here! I certainly wouldn't have known to follow it for a discussion about creating and rm-ing a group. The dispersal of alt-groups is still very dodgy and takes quite a while for the news-trickle to percolate out here to the distant leaves. (Your proposal just arrived this a.m., for example, ok?) I think if you rmgroup alt.hypertext, the attendant confusion and ripples will muck it up completely for those of us who are just warming up to this group. Please wait a couple of months and see what happens then, ok? Dennis E. Hamilton -- -- orcmid {uucp: ... !rochester!sjfc!deh0654 vanishing into a twisty little network of nodes all alike}