Reading List: Difference between revisions
(→Linked Data: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Text=in the spirit of cultivating our garden: [[Reading List]] https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/amp/ | |Text=in the spirit of cultivating our garden: [[Reading List]] https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/amp/ | ||
|Link=https://discord.com/channels/1029514961782849607/1033091723389317160/1038112016038101062 | |Link=https://discord.com/channels/1029514961782849607/1033091723389317160/1038112016038101062 | ||
}}{{Message | |||
|Author=joelchan86 | |||
|Avatar=https://cdn.discordapp.com/avatars/322545403876868096/6dd171845a7a4e30603d98ae510c77b8.png?size=1024 | |||
|Date Sent=22-11-10 21:38:25 | |||
|Channel=discourse graphs | |||
|Text=in human-computer interaction we have a similar problem of trying to think about and synthesize across many genres of contributions/research. one map (adapted for information studies) breaks things out into "empirical" contributions (these most often follow the standard intro/methods/results/discussion format), "conceptual" contributions (which are often more amorphous theory papers), and "constructive" contributions (making a new system/method) | |||
from here: HCI Research as Problem-Solving | Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems | |||
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2858036.2858283 | |||
cc [[Reading List]] | |||
|Link=https://discord.com/channels/1029514961782849607/1040214388554084372/1040379933115043912 | |||
}}{{Message | |||
|Author=sneakers-the-rat | |||
|Avatar=https://cdn.discordapp.com/avatars/305044217393053697/2970b22bd769d0cd0ee1de79be500e85.png?size=1024 | |||
|Date Sent=22-11-12 03:30:30 | |||
|Channel=discourse-modeling | |||
|Text=I am definitely on team "scruffy" per Lindsay Poirier's typology (BTW "[[A Turn for the Scruffy]]" should be on the collective [[Reading List]] for anyone who hasn't come across it) and so yes definitely "Own-terminology" iterating into something shared, part of why i love the semwiki model of building them. On the other end of things for tomorrow - Is there any particular existing ontology/schema/etc. anyone in this group would like to have imported into the wiki for discourse modeling? | |||
|Link=https://discord.com/channels/1029514961782849607/1038988750677606432/1040830926629896212 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:29, 12 November 2022
Discord
in the spirit of cultivating our garden: Reading List https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/amp/
in human-computer interaction we have a similar problem of trying to think about and synthesize across many genres of contributions/research. one map (adapted for information studies) breaks things out into "empirical" contributions (these most often follow the standard intro/methods/results/discussion format), "conceptual" contributions (which are often more amorphous theory papers), and "constructive" contributions (making a new system/method)
from here: HCI Research as Problem-Solving
I am definitely on team "scruffy" per Lindsay Poirier's typology (BTW "A Turn for the Scruffy" should be on the collective Reading List for anyone who hasn't come across it) and so yes definitely "Own-terminology" iterating into something shared, part of why i love the semwiki model of building them. On the other end of things for tomorrow - Is there any particular existing ontology/schema/etc. anyone in this group would like to have imported into the wiki for discourse modeling?
Linked Data
To add to the Reading List#Linked Data on Linked Data, Standards, and Collaboration: a piece from one of the authors of ActivityPub on the merger of the distributed messaging and linked data communities that I think puts into context what a massive achievement AP was http://dustycloud.org/blog/on-standards-divisions-collaboration/