There are some things seriously wrong with the world right now, and they are based on ancient and - by our current understanding - wrong concepts of human social needs.
Women used to belong to a man, and some of the conclusions from that are still in place. One of the reasons abortion is such a hot potato is that there's still fragments of the idea that a woman is just a breeding machine for the man, a tool for making him an heir.
At the same time, men are equally disadvantaged by these old assumptions. That in a divorce generally the man is the financial loser is based on the assumption that women are economically weaker, if not entirely dependent, and need continued access to the mans income to survive.
In a truly equal world, we would laugh about both these ideas. We would tell a man who wants to have a say in his woman's abortion that he can put the kid in his own belly if he wants it so much. And we would tell a woman to go and find a job when she fishes for her man's salary in divorce proceedings.
his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.
The making part is not what the whole abortion thing is all about. Sure the issue is tricky, but with his very straight approach, we would definitely have a very good solution, and solving the rare "man wants the baby, woman doesn't" case will be much easier than the current situation.
We all make mistakes, but if you don't come clean and apologize I doubt that you have magically become a better person all of a sudden. Possible, sure.. Probable? Hardly.
I'm the opposite. I don't trust "good people". Knowing that we are all human and we all make mistakes, it is more likely that they are tricky and good at hiding bodies than it is that they are actually flawless.
What you want to say is that he has 1st hand experience of the claim that he is making. And you know what? It is absolutely possible, even likely, that both of you are right.
This seems to be forgotten in so many discussions - that the truth matrix has four fields. Both parties can be right, both parties can be wrong. Why we so often assume one is wrong and one is right?
That was almos one hundred years ago, I think I should not have to spell out explicitly that unless otherwise noted, I'm speaking in the context, which is the present.
Because in the party systems, you don't actually have a choice.
You have 2 (UK, USA) or 3, 4, 5 (most of Europa) parties to choose from that have a realistic chance of becoming the or part of the government. But they are all essentially the same. Like one german cabaret artist put so nicely: "Do you want to offer me shit in different flavors?"
Nothing changes, because the people in office are all the same. It's like being asked to choose your favorite team - in a sport you don't like at all. It's a meaningless choice.
As I've not been in an Apocalypse, I don't know and neither do you. We are making guesses.
But we look back at history and see that even when the world goes to shit around you, especially when the world goes to shit around you, people do not become monsters. On the contrary, it seems that cooperation, loyalty and communality emerge even more strongly.
Firstly, which skills, exactly, do you keep sharp through a monotonous, repetitive activity like highway driving? Especially in the US with its turtle-speed speed limits? With the Tesla and other car makers approach to autonomous driving, the car is not even trying to manage all possible situations, only the ones that are so fucking boring, humans actually fall asleep doing them.
Secondly, what makes you think humans are better in emergency situations? For starters, we have this literally fatal flaw called reaction time.
No, humans are terrible in car emergencies. 99% or so of them require one of two very simple things that a computer is much better at: Bring the vehicle to a controlled stop, fast. - or - Steer to avoid the obstacle, do it right now. What computers can't handle well are exceptional situations. But in 20+ years of driving, I've not had one of those that was an emergency. This is stuff like road construction where the lane markers are completely missing. Or some situation where police is directing traffic, telling you to do something that the road signs and markers clearly forbid - do the self-driving cars understand police gestures and that they overrule road signs?
In an emergency, fast is better than smart, especially when a crash is unavoidable. Every km/h you can get slower before crashing matters to the injuries you will suffer.
There's a reason we still use C after all these years and one million attempts to replace it with something else. Most of the over-hyped C replacements have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Those who are still around bring something new to the table instead of trying to outdo C in its own domain.
Unless you understand why this is so, don't even think about doing something else.
Rhetorical question, very much? When was the last time that people went on the street with signs reading "we want more advertisement"?
The really interesting question is: How do they get this data, which data do they send to get it, and how long will it take until there is the first piece of malware advertisement?
(you think if they limit it to featuring apps, that can't be exploited. You must be kidding. Firstly, someone will be smarter than you are and find a way. Secondly, what makes you so sure it will remain limited to featured apps?)
That's interesting. I won't be able to wait for that, unfortunately. But maybe we should stay in touch, because I reckon that I will encounter this issue again and might tackle it as well.
Firstly, thanks a lot for your time. This is exactly the kind of exchange I was hoping for (well, that and a small hope someone would post "sure, look here at http://semantic-documentation-...").
Is it absolutely required that the data be embedded in, and tagged within, your documents which are stored in the wiki?
Not absolutely, but I am afraid that if prose and metadata are seperate, they will go out of sync. One thing I like about SMW, for example, is how easy it is to update both at the same time, it comes so naturally that you don't even realise it.
RDFa is RDF in attributes.
Yes, if there were an editor (you already point out there isn't, damn) this would be really cool.
Earlier, you said you figured other people would have wanted to do this before. Of course they have. It's called "The Semantic Web,"
Yes and no. I want something very similar, except with a more narrow focus and thus easier to make possible. I'm currently looking at ArchiMate following someone elses pointers and the advantage of modelling business processes in it as well. Someone in the Netherlands has studied the exact problem I'm trying to solve and published a small paper.
You would not believe the insanely complex data structures necessary to build real, usable databases with only triples.
I believe. The database design for my online game (see footer) is anything but trivial and it has many places where I've encountered exactly this problem of complex relations between entities.
So, I think you would be far better off with a separate database to contain your information. The records in that database could include citations pointing to your documents, in case someone wanted to drill down to the true source of the info.
Yes, I've been thinking along similar lines, except that I would like to embed or something, at least one step better than linking, but that's a UI issue.
Yes, in most documentation you have some prose and then tables or diagrams containing hard data. It would be possible to do it this way, if the systems are well integrated.
You can still incorporate your documentation library, but from the other way around. Instead of storing your information IN your documents and mining it out, you store your information in a purpose-built SYSTEM and then refer to your documents as supporting evidence.
That is another option. What I have learnt from all the answers here put together is that no such solution exists (what a shame. Anyone got VC and looking for a Startup concept?) and that it will either have to be built or put together from existing components. That turns it into an integration issue.
Very interesting answers, thanks. I will follow up on them and talk to others in the company to find the solution that best fits.
Very smart insight. You should also mention that organized crime has the organisational advantage in not only having a clear command structure, but also one that can operate independently of the public communication networks. Heck, in some countries they have their own mobile networks.
So, it honestly depends on the warehouse owner/manager and the individual connections that the person has.
Depends on the scenario. It makes for a better movie when the breakdown of civilization happens in hours, but from history I would guess that it will take days or weeks, more realistically. That is more than enough to take a few trucks, drive over to the nearest warehouse and simply take everything you want, at gunpoint. Time it right during the breakdown and no police will show up to stop you. You just need to be slightly faster and more organised than other looters.
If you're a billionaire, then 35k is not even worth discussing, even the $3 mio. for an actual space is a minor expense. Easily comparable to what we normal people pay for, say, car insurance. So it's really just that: An "just in case" expense.
There is existing documentation emerging from the project phase that is largely written in Word and is planned to be added to a wiki or something similar, where it can be better maintained and updated. So every piece of documentation will be touched anyway.
The metadata I am looking for is not about whole documents. I don't give a rats ass about that, if I am looking for the document about encryption protocols, I already know where to find it. I want factlets. From a security perspective, when a network is compromised I want to query the configuration database to find all systems on that subnet, but also the documentation to figure out the destinations of all data flows out of that subnet, for example. When a server fails, I want to understand which other systems that rely on it will likely fail next. When an application is reworked, I want to know which other applications are connected in one way or the other.
All this understanding of the system architecture is usually in the heads of people and hidden somewhere in tomes of documentation and graphs that you need to read and understand. I want that knowledge query-able.
You are probably right that a knowledge manager would be useful at this stage. And yes, I understand I won't be able to buy a product and press a button and everything is good. But I need to start somewhere, and the right technology choice is usually a good starting point.
Just that I would like to put the metadata into the documentation while it is being written, instead of using some kind of search or analysis in an attempt to extract it later on. It seems stupid to me to not do it right the first time.
That's just as wrong. We should check if people have a legitimate complaint. We should just be much more clear to people who bother us again and again with bullshit.
As you say this is an IT project It sounds like you need a CMDB that can store relations and metadata. Couple this with confluence for hard documentation and you should be covered.
It is the "couple this" part that brings me here. I want to couple it better than "look here for this and look there for that". If I can integrate these two, I would be covered. Any pointers?
That would fly, but from the little information I could gain it's basically a CMS with good search capabilities. Does it have any kind of structured data, ontology, etc?
That is why I'm looking for a system that understands these problems exist and helps solving them, e.g. by formalizing data input.
That is why I think something like SMW won't cut it, because the system needs structure enforced instead of relying on users always doing the right thing all the time.
It's probably possible to hack something together with SMW and Semantic Forms and some other extensions, I just really wonder if I'm the first person ever who wants structured, query-able documentation?
I want to solve a problem, and I have an idea that would improve on the current solution, if I can find something that is not a hack or a DIY. Maybe I will find, maybe I will find out it doesn't exist. I already spent many hours searching and comparing and didn't find, but I already got some good pointers that I can follow for more information. All is good.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the point.
There are some things seriously wrong with the world right now, and they are based on ancient and - by our current understanding - wrong concepts of human social needs.
Women used to belong to a man, and some of the conclusions from that are still in place. One of the reasons abortion is such a hot potato is that there's still fragments of the idea that a woman is just a breeding machine for the man, a tool for making him an heir.
At the same time, men are equally disadvantaged by these old assumptions. That in a divorce generally the man is the financial loser is based on the assumption that women are economically weaker, if not entirely dependent, and need continued access to the mans income to survive.
In a truly equal world, we would laugh about both these ideas. We would tell a man who wants to have a say in his woman's abortion that he can put the kid in his own belly if he wants it so much. And we would tell a woman to go and find a job when she fishes for her man's salary in divorce proceedings.
It's not just child support. Try to get out of a marriage without losing your life savings once there is a child.
his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.
The making part is not what the whole abortion thing is all about. Sure the issue is tricky, but with his very straight approach, we would definitely have a very good solution, and solving the rare "man wants the baby, woman doesn't" case will be much easier than the current situation.
We all make mistakes, but if you don't come clean and apologize I doubt that you have magically become a better person all of a sudden. Possible, sure.. Probable? Hardly.
I'm the opposite. I don't trust "good people". Knowing that we are all human and we all make mistakes, it is more likely that they are tricky and good at hiding bodies than it is that they are actually flawless.
What you want to say is that he has 1st hand experience of the claim that he is making. And you know what? It is absolutely possible, even likely, that both of you are right.
This seems to be forgotten in so many discussions - that the truth matrix has four fields. Both parties can be right, both parties can be wrong. Why we so often assume one is wrong and one is right?
1930's Germany
That was almos one hundred years ago, I think I should not have to spell out explicitly that unless otherwise noted, I'm speaking in the context, which is the present.
Because in the party systems, you don't actually have a choice.
You have 2 (UK, USA) or 3, 4, 5 (most of Europa) parties to choose from that have a realistic chance of becoming the or part of the government. But they are all essentially the same. Like one german cabaret artist put so nicely: "Do you want to offer me shit in different flavors?"
Nothing changes, because the people in office are all the same. It's like being asked to choose your favorite team - in a sport you don't like at all. It's a meaningless choice.
That is one step closers to automatically detecting this clickbait bullshit, so my ad blocker can filter it out...
That's what they intend to do, yes? Right?
As I've not been in an Apocalypse, I don't know and neither do you. We are making guesses.
But we look back at history and see that even when the world goes to shit around you, especially when the world goes to shit around you, people do not become monsters. On the contrary, it seems that cooperation, loyalty and communality emerge even more strongly.
So much human-hyping in that.
Firstly, which skills, exactly, do you keep sharp through a monotonous, repetitive activity like highway driving? Especially in the US with its turtle-speed speed limits? With the Tesla and other car makers approach to autonomous driving, the car is not even trying to manage all possible situations, only the ones that are so fucking boring, humans actually fall asleep doing them.
Secondly, what makes you think humans are better in emergency situations? For starters, we have this literally fatal flaw called reaction time.
No, humans are terrible in car emergencies. 99% or so of them require one of two very simple things that a computer is much better at: Bring the vehicle to a controlled stop, fast. - or - Steer to avoid the obstacle, do it right now.
What computers can't handle well are exceptional situations. But in 20+ years of driving, I've not had one of those that was an emergency. This is stuff like road construction where the lane markers are completely missing. Or some situation where police is directing traffic, telling you to do something that the road signs and markers clearly forbid - do the self-driving cars understand police gestures and that they overrule road signs?
In an emergency, fast is better than smart, especially when a crash is unavoidable. Every km/h you can get slower before crashing matters to the injuries you will suffer.
There's a reason we still use C after all these years and one million attempts to replace it with something else. Most of the over-hyped C replacements have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Those who are still around bring something new to the table instead of trying to outdo C in its own domain.
Unless you understand why this is so, don't even think about doing something else.
Will it be well-received?
Rhetorical question, very much? When was the last time that people went on the street with signs reading "we want more advertisement"?
The really interesting question is: How do they get this data, which data do they send to get it, and how long will it take until there is the first piece of malware advertisement?
(you think if they limit it to featuring apps, that can't be exploited. You must be kidding. Firstly, someone will be smarter than you are and find a way. Secondly, what makes you so sure it will remain limited to featured apps?)
That's interesting. I won't be able to wait for that, unfortunately. But maybe we should stay in touch, because I reckon that I will encounter this issue again and might tackle it as well.
how do you keep an armed private security force loyal?
By carefully selecting them beforehand, and by offering them and their families a place in the hideout.
Give them homes in the shelter and they take over whenever they feel like it
That's the careful selection part. Loyal people still exist in this world, you know?
Firstly, thanks a lot for your time. This is exactly the kind of exchange I was hoping for (well, that and a small hope someone would post "sure, look here at http://semantic-documentation-...").
Is it absolutely required that the data be embedded in, and tagged within, your documents which are stored in the wiki?
Not absolutely, but I am afraid that if prose and metadata are seperate, they will go out of sync. One thing I like about SMW, for example, is how easy it is to update both at the same time, it comes so naturally that you don't even realise it.
RDFa is RDF in attributes.
Yes, if there were an editor (you already point out there isn't, damn) this would be really cool.
Earlier, you said you figured other people would have wanted to do this before. Of course they have. It's called "The Semantic Web,"
Yes and no. I want something very similar, except with a more narrow focus and thus easier to make possible. I'm currently looking at ArchiMate following someone elses pointers and the advantage of modelling business processes in it as well. Someone in the Netherlands has studied the exact problem I'm trying to solve and published a small paper.
You would not believe the insanely complex data structures necessary to build real, usable databases with only triples.
I believe. The database design for my online game (see footer) is anything but trivial and it has many places where I've encountered exactly this problem of complex relations between entities.
So, I think you would be far better off with a separate database to contain your information. The records in that database could include citations pointing to your documents, in case someone wanted to drill down to the true source of the info.
Yes, I've been thinking along similar lines, except that I would like to embed or something, at least one step better than linking, but that's a UI issue.
Yes, in most documentation you have some prose and then tables or diagrams containing hard data. It would be possible to do it this way, if the systems are well integrated.
You can still incorporate your documentation library, but from the other way around. Instead of storing your information IN your documents and mining it out, you store your information in a purpose-built SYSTEM and then refer to your documents as supporting evidence.
That is another option. What I have learnt from all the answers here put together is that no such solution exists (what a shame. Anyone got VC and looking for a Startup concept?) and that it will either have to be built or put together from existing components. That turns it into an integration issue.
Very interesting answers, thanks. I will follow up on them and talk to others in the company to find the solution that best fits.
Very smart insight. You should also mention that organized crime has the organisational advantage in not only having a clear command structure, but also one that can operate independently of the public communication networks. Heck, in some countries they have their own mobile networks.
So, it honestly depends on the warehouse owner/manager and the individual connections that the person has.
Depends on the scenario. It makes for a better movie when the breakdown of civilization happens in hours, but from history I would guess that it will take days or weeks, more realistically. That is more than enough to take a few trucks, drive over to the nearest warehouse and simply take everything you want, at gunpoint. Time it right during the breakdown and no police will show up to stop you. You just need to be slightly faster and more organised than other looters.
You missed the part where they employ an armed private security force to defend against exactly that.
tl;dr: Try, they will shoot you.
If you're a billionaire, then 35k is not even worth discussing, even the $3 mio. for an actual space is a minor expense. Easily comparable to what we normal people pay for, say, car insurance. So it's really just that: An "just in case" expense.
There is existing documentation emerging from the project phase that is largely written in Word and is planned to be added to a wiki or something similar, where it can be better maintained and updated. So every piece of documentation will be touched anyway.
The metadata I am looking for is not about whole documents. I don't give a rats ass about that, if I am looking for the document about encryption protocols, I already know where to find it. I want factlets. From a security perspective, when a network is compromised I want to query the configuration database to find all systems on that subnet, but also the documentation to figure out the destinations of all data flows out of that subnet, for example. When a server fails, I want to understand which other systems that rely on it will likely fail next. When an application is reworked, I want to know which other applications are connected in one way or the other.
All this understanding of the system architecture is usually in the heads of people and hidden somewhere in tomes of documentation and graphs that you need to read and understand. I want that knowledge query-able.
You are probably right that a knowledge manager would be useful at this stage. And yes, I understand I won't be able to buy a product and press a button and everything is good. But I need to start somewhere, and the right technology choice is usually a good starting point.
Just that I would like to put the metadata into the documentation while it is being written, instead of using some kind of search or analysis in an attempt to extract it later on. It seems stupid to me to not do it right the first time.
That's just as wrong. We should check if people have a legitimate complaint. We should just be much more clear to people who bother us again and again with bullshit.
This deserves to be modded up, it is the best answer so far, and integration with the business layer is a big added benefit I didn't even consider.
I will look into it, thanks.
As you say this is an IT project It sounds like you need a CMDB that can store relations and metadata. Couple this with confluence for hard documentation and you should be covered.
It is the "couple this" part that brings me here. I want to couple it better than "look here for this and look there for that". If I can integrate these two, I would be covered. Any pointers?
That would fly, but from the little information I could gain it's basically a CMS with good search capabilities. Does it have any kind of structured data, ontology, etc?
That is why I'm looking for a system that understands these problems exist and helps solving them, e.g. by formalizing data input.
That is why I think something like SMW won't cut it, because the system needs structure enforced instead of relying on users always doing the right thing all the time.
It's probably possible to hack something together with SMW and Semantic Forms and some other extensions, I just really wonder if I'm the first person ever who wants structured, query-able documentation?
Why the negativity?
I want to solve a problem, and I have an idea that would improve on the current solution, if I can find something that is not a hack or a DIY. Maybe I will find, maybe I will find out it doesn't exist. I already spent many hours searching and comparing and didn't find, but I already got some good pointers that I can follow for more information. All is good.