Thinking Domain Quads
General Quads
is 1 or 0 (not true or false)
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| domain | settings | |||
| domain | <uid> | rights | ||
| domain | [<gid>] | rights | ||
| domain | [<gid>,<uid>] | rights | ||
| domain | all | rights | ||
| group | ||||
| thought | ||||
| comment | ||||
| tag | * | |||
| user |
Domain Settings Quads
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| domain | settings | display sytles | ||
| domain | settings | sign up thought id | ||
| domain | settings | about title | the title text | |
| domain | settings | river title | the title text | |
| domain | settings | star icon | url to icon to use for star in menubar | |
| domain | settings | river icon | url to icon to use for river in menubar | |
| domain | settings | homegroup | group id of home group |
Group Property Quads
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| group | -gid- | permanence | ||
| group | -gid- | autostatus | ||
| group | -gid- | hideTagCloud | 1 or 0 | |
| group | -gid- | globalTagCloud | 1 or 0 | |
| group | -gid- | showRiver | 1 or 0 |
Thought Property Quads
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| thought | no-comment | * | ||
| thought | no-tag | * | ||
| thought | no-footer | * | ||
| thought | copyright | rights to copy * |
Comment Property Quads
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| comment | nothread | terminate the comment |
User Property Quads
| context | subject | verb | object | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| user | data | user profile | ||
| user | password | |||
| user | group | profile group | ||
| user | ||||
| user | home | tented location | ||
| user | mute-notify-sounds | |||
| user | hide-online-status | |||
| user | spell-checker | |||
| user | profile-image | |||
| user | profile-thought | edit user profile with |
* not yet implemented or used
Tags
- rights
- quads
- settings
- thought 20371
Comments
Mark de LA says
My 2¢ wonders why, of if? even, you have a syntax description in language or mentographs somewhere of the magic object called a quad besides the [SVOcontext] thingy. 
What you folks seem to be discussing is implementation. What is interesting is that just about any SQL database is described by the tables which may be of 2 columns or thousands.
All quads with a subject of <uid>, me thinks, are though property quads. The context could be considered to always be a fixed context like “thought”. But why limit it? A subject can be in any context. Examples can be provided.
Don’t really know what you mean.
well if these quads are always just “system” quads which the system uses to establish facts of operation, then, yes a quad talking about a particular thought <id> would have a fixed context … as you established it, “thought” … saying in essence this is how to process this particular thought.
But what about quads with a though <id> that is not just being used by the system to establish facts of operation. So that thought can be in any context that somone wants to consider it. For example any thought in group seth could be considered to be in the context group seth. If i moved it to group fbi then you could consider the thought to be in the context of group fbi.
← just saying that we can use quads for things quite apart from just system settings.
But what about quads with a though <id> that is not just being used by the system to establish facts of operation. So that thought can be in any context that somone wants to consider it. For example any thought in group seth could be considered to be in the context group seth. If i moved it to group fbi then you could consider the thought to be in the context of group fbi.
← just saying that we can use quads for things quite apart from just system settings.
Not seeing how that is “using quads” though. If you move a thought to another group, nothing in the quad table changes at all. The quad table has no relationship about what group a thought is in.
If you are just calling being in a group a quad-like relationship for your own thinking, then I guess so. But there is no actual relationship like that in the system.
In fact, I can pretty much say now that this is one place where doing the whole system in the quad table would have worked against us. The kinds of queries that access group relationships would have been much slower if the quad table stored the group → thought relationship. Sometimes exact tables provide better efficiency and stability.
If you want to build a logical system on top of the existing structure that works with concepts of the system as if they were quads, that could be a thing … for someday anyway 
Yep your system will work just fine …. if the context contains the string “thought” then your code knows right away that the pairs are properties of some thought. The subject contains a thought number.
Good to know that … so nobody should expect to use your quads routines to process quads authored by people and embedded in the thoughts themselves. For in that application, the number which stamps the identity of a subject is not determined by the which context the subject is in … 56 in the subject could be talking about thought 56 … or it could be talking about group 56. That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.
← but hey, i know you don’t want to think about that shit. As you say, leave it for a different developer.
Good to know that … so nobody should expect to use your quads routines to process quads authored by people and embedded in the thoughts themselves. For in that application, the number which stamps the identity of a subject is not determined by the which context the subject is in … 56 in the subject could be talking about thought 56 … or it could be talking about group 56. That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.
← but hey, i know you don’t want to think about that shit. As you say, leave it for a different developer.
Yep. As I said before, you would need quints, not quads, to build an efficient system operation table.
Due to the restrictions TBL placed on quads, they do not easily model all things, just some sets of things in the human world … unless you just create a whole bunch more quads to store the additional relationships … but that just offloads the issue onto a query programmer to stand on his head in fountains until he can think out a whopper query which will get the information back out when it is needed in some kind of an efficient way … if it even can be done.
Due to the restrictions TBL placed on quads, they do not easily model all things, just some sets of things in the human world … unless you just create a whole bunch more quads to store the additional relationships … but that just offloads the issue onto a query programmer to stand on his head in fountains until he can think out a whopper query which will get the information back out when it is needed in some kind of an efficient way … if it even can be done.
Well sure you probably will need to type each element to make a practical system ...otherwise, as you say, you would need to use too many extra arrows.
You might find it funny that i actually designed a “pents” system and even made it work … see the graph of the data structure here. ← just a historical note.
But as far as i know, these can represent anything which can be expressed in language. Theoretically of course, but i have never found a contra example.
Anyway don’t let this distract you.
You might find it funny that i actually designed a “pents” system and even made it work … see the graph of the data structure here. ← just a historical note.
But as far as i know, these can represent anything which can be expressed in language. Theoretically of course, but i have never found a contra example.
Anyway don’t let this distract you.
Okay. Because even if the current structure is not strict quad semantics (slightly ambiguous triples), it is very clean and organized well for contextual permissions and subjects are real subjects and verbs are the real action component even if both of those are not unique. So if someday the table was to be expanded into a different system it would probably fall right into place quite naturally.
And I would ask, why are quads only context + triple? Why can’t another type of quad be a true quad such that all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity? That seems like a “true quad” to me. The context + triple is only a hybrid … and if so, then my quads are “true quads”, not quadified triples.
And I would ask, why are quads only context + triple? Why can’t another type of quad be a true quad such that all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity? That seems like a “true quad” to me. The context + triple is only a hybrid … and if so, then my quads are “true quads”, not quadified triples.
…. er, all 4 of the quads do create a unique identity. Well certainly in the Sementic Web implementations …. each element of the quad is a full unambigjuous URI.
… or maybe i have no idea what your phrase “all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity”. and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it.
… or maybe i have no idea what your phrase “all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity”. and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it.
Hey, I’m just haring up from your statement “That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.” … and saying that in our fbi system each element of the quad is a full unambiguous URI.
“and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it” … that’s your way of looking at it. Based on my current and evolved over time understanding of reality, I would say that more often than not, what we use to represent things is actually what creates them. For instance, Science is “created” by consensus of opinion, not discovered by it … I realized this a year ago watching Gerald do “science” and publish in journals and compare notes with peers. They were not “discovering things” as they thought they were doing using the “scientific method”, they were literally coming into agreement with how things should be in all of their individual verses and then solidifying them to be that way with their journalism and lectures … synchronizing like minded thoughts which then created each of their realities to be similar. Actual things could have been any way up to that point … and usually are in most peoples experiences.
“and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it” … that’s your way of looking at it. Based on my current and evolved over time understanding of reality, I would say that more often than not, what we use to represent things is actually what creates them. For instance, Science is “created” by consensus of opinion, not discovered by it … I realized this a year ago watching Gerald do “science” and publish in journals and compare notes with peers. They were not “discovering things” as they thought they were doing using the “scientific method”, they were literally coming into agreement with how things should be in all of their individual verses and then solidifying them to be that way with their journalism and lectures … synchronizing like minded thoughts which then created each of their realities to be similar. Actual things could have been any way up to that point … and usually are in most peoples experiences.
Well what you put in the subject is not a full unambuiou URI … unless you are doing something you havent descibed to me. if the number 20 can be in the subject, it could point to either group 20 or 20. However if you did “id_20” or “group_20” that would be an unambiguous reference within a domain and could even be translated into a full URI outside the domain … http://www.fastblogit.com/item/20 or http://www.fastblogit.com/20 .
We can consider our different models of what is happening elsewhere. Its nice that we both can understand the different assumptions upon which our different minds are based. That way there we don’t need to argue them.
We can consider our different models of what is happening elsewhere. Its nice that we both can understand the different assumptions upon which our different minds are based. That way there we don’t need to argue them.
What you folks seem to be discussing is implementation. What is interesting is that just about any SQL database is described by the tables which may be of 2 columns or thousands.
Seth says
well like i said, for representing system settings, and only system settings, it almost certainly won’t matter. you can have your context, “group” or “thought”, hard coded to specify the type of the thing identified in the subject. but in a more complex systems, those things might need to be considered in a wide variety of different contexts … and were that to ever be necessary your hard coding will prevent the consideration. but again, that almost certainly will never happen … and even if it does you can inform the wizard of the domain that such a consideration is quite impossible for technical reasons .
imho, it doen’t help to mix a philosophy of verses with the design of a KR system … the latter should be able to represent anything regardless of the assumptions of the former. to me, its more just mathematics.
All quads with a subject of <uid>, me thinks, are though property quads. The context could be considered to always be a fixed context like “thought”. But why limit it? A subject can be in any context. Examples can be provided.
Don’t really know what you mean.
well if these quads are always just “system” quads which the system uses to establish facts of operation, then, yes a quad talking about a particular thought <id> would have a fixed context … as you established it, “thought” … saying in essence this is how to process this particular thought.
But what about quads with a though <id> that is not just being used by the system to establish facts of operation. So that thought can be in any context that somone wants to consider it. For example any thought in group seth could be considered to be in the context group seth. If i moved it to group fbi then you could consider the thought to be in the context of group fbi.
← just saying that we can use quads for things quite apart from just system settings.
But what about quads with a though <id> that is not just being used by the system to establish facts of operation. So that thought can be in any context that somone wants to consider it. For example any thought in group seth could be considered to be in the context group seth. If i moved it to group fbi then you could consider the thought to be in the context of group fbi.
← just saying that we can use quads for things quite apart from just system settings.
Not seeing how that is “using quads” though. If you move a thought to another group, nothing in the quad table changes at all. The quad table has no relationship about what group a thought is in.
If you are just calling being in a group a quad-like relationship for your own thinking, then I guess so. But there is no actual relationship like that in the system.
In fact, I can pretty much say now that this is one place where doing the whole system in the quad table would have worked against us. The kinds of queries that access group relationships would have been much slower if the quad table stored the group → thought relationship. Sometimes exact tables provide better efficiency and stability.
If you want to build a logical system on top of the existing structure that works with concepts of the system as if they were quads, that could be a thing … for someday anyway
Yep your system will work just fine …. if the context contains the string “thought” then your code knows right away that the pairs are properties of some thought. The subject contains a thought number.
Good to know that … so nobody should expect to use your quads routines to process quads authored by people and embedded in the thoughts themselves. For in that application, the number which stamps the identity of a subject is not determined by the which context the subject is in … 56 in the subject could be talking about thought 56 … or it could be talking about group 56. That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.
← but hey, i know you don’t want to think about that shit. As you say, leave it for a different developer.
Good to know that … so nobody should expect to use your quads routines to process quads authored by people and embedded in the thoughts themselves. For in that application, the number which stamps the identity of a subject is not determined by the which context the subject is in … 56 in the subject could be talking about thought 56 … or it could be talking about group 56. That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.
← but hey, i know you don’t want to think about that shit. As you say, leave it for a different developer.
Yep. As I said before, you would need quints, not quads, to build an efficient system operation table.
Due to the restrictions TBL placed on quads, they do not easily model all things, just some sets of things in the human world … unless you just create a whole bunch more quads to store the additional relationships … but that just offloads the issue onto a query programmer to stand on his head in fountains until he can think out a whopper query which will get the information back out when it is needed in some kind of an efficient way … if it even can be done.
Due to the restrictions TBL placed on quads, they do not easily model all things, just some sets of things in the human world … unless you just create a whole bunch more quads to store the additional relationships … but that just offloads the issue onto a query programmer to stand on his head in fountains until he can think out a whopper query which will get the information back out when it is needed in some kind of an efficient way … if it even can be done.
Well sure you probably will need to type each element to make a practical system ...otherwise, as you say, you would need to use too many extra arrows.
You might find it funny that i actually designed a “pents” system and even made it work … see the graph of the data structure here. ← just a historical note.
But as far as i know, these can represent anything which can be expressed in language. Theoretically of course, but i have never found a contra example.
Anyway don’t let this distract you.
You might find it funny that i actually designed a “pents” system and even made it work … see the graph of the data structure here. ← just a historical note.
But as far as i know, these can represent anything which can be expressed in language. Theoretically of course, but i have never found a contra example.
Anyway don’t let this distract you.
Okay. Because even if the current structure is not strict quad semantics (slightly ambiguous triples), it is very clean and organized well for contextual permissions and subjects are real subjects and verbs are the real action component even if both of those are not unique. So if someday the table was to be expanded into a different system it would probably fall right into place quite naturally.
And I would ask, why are quads only context + triple? Why can’t another type of quad be a true quad such that all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity? That seems like a “true quad” to me. The context + triple is only a hybrid … and if so, then my quads are “true quads”, not quadified triples.
And I would ask, why are quads only context + triple? Why can’t another type of quad be a true quad such that all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity? That seems like a “true quad” to me. The context + triple is only a hybrid … and if so, then my quads are “true quads”, not quadified triples.
…. er, all 4 of the quads do create a unique identity. Well certainly in the Sementic Web implementations …. each element of the quad is a full unambigjuous URI.
… or maybe i have no idea what your phrase “all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity”. and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it.
… or maybe i have no idea what your phrase “all 4 of the keys must create a unique identity”. and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it.
Hey, I’m just haring up from your statement “That is why TBL, in his wisdom, insisted that each element of the triple be a full unambiguous URI.” … and saying that in our fbi system each element of the quad is a full unambiguous URI.
“and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it” … that’s your way of looking at it. Based on my current and evolved over time understanding of reality, I would say that more often than not, what we use to represent things is actually what creates them. For instance, Science is “created” by consensus of opinion, not discovered by it … I realized this a year ago watching Gerald do “science” and publish in journals and compare notes with peers. They were not “discovering things” as they thought they were doing using the “scientific method”, they were literally coming into agreement with how things should be in all of their individual verses and then solidifying them to be that way with their journalism and lectures … synchronizing like minded thoughts which then created each of their realities to be similar. Actual things could have been any way up to that point … and usually are in most peoples experiences.
“and btw, the elements of a quad do not “create” that entity, they just point to it” … that’s your way of looking at it. Based on my current and evolved over time understanding of reality, I would say that more often than not, what we use to represent things is actually what creates them. For instance, Science is “created” by consensus of opinion, not discovered by it … I realized this a year ago watching Gerald do “science” and publish in journals and compare notes with peers. They were not “discovering things” as they thought they were doing using the “scientific method”, they were literally coming into agreement with how things should be in all of their individual verses and then solidifying them to be that way with their journalism and lectures … synchronizing like minded thoughts which then created each of their realities to be similar. Actual things could have been any way up to that point … and usually are in most peoples experiences.
Well what you put in the subject is not a full unambuiou URI … unless you are doing something you havent descibed to me. if the number 20 can be in the subject, it could point to either group 20 or 20. However if you did “id_20” or “group_20” that would be an unambiguous reference within a domain and could even be translated into a full URI outside the domain … http://www.fastblogit.com/item/20 or http://www.fastblogit.com/20 .
We can consider our different models of what is happening elsewhere. Its nice that we both can understand the different assumptions upon which our different minds are based. That way there we don’t need to argue them.
We can consider our different models of what is happening elsewhere. Its nice that we both can understand the different assumptions upon which our different minds are based. That way there we don’t need to argue them.
2016-03-09 09:57:10 [item 20371#48547]
Why is it necessary to have unique subjects in an entire verse? If so, then they should be something like GUIDS so then they don’t need to be “constructed” by code which takes extra time and makes code that is less stable and much harder to maintain.
The verse has many subjects with the same name, such as Seth Russell, or even just a verse which can be an experience in the multiverse or could be part of a song or poem. Doesn’t seem to me that making subjects unique is needed. All that needs to be unique is the context-subject-verb and then a whole verse is mappable.
The verse has many subjects with the same name, such as Seth Russell, or even just a verse which can be an experience in the multiverse or could be part of a song or poem. Doesn’t seem to me that making subjects unique is needed. All that needs to be unique is the context-subject-verb and then a whole verse is mappable.
.imho, it doen’t help to mix a philosophy of verses with the design of a KR system … the latter should be able to represent anything regardless of the assumptions of the former. to me, its more just mathematics.
See Also
- Thought An Event is something that the news reports on with 42 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought The Mentography of Rights with 9 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Why quads? Quads vs RDF with 6 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Quads with 3 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought mentography of items with 3 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Everything ? with 3 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought General Rights with 1 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought items vs quads gives us forms with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Repeating Quads Structure on tagtalking dev blog with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought about: U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought form vs data with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought bug: i can think in this close group when i come from the news. with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought testing please be patient with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought about: The Right's of Photographers (when shooting in public places) | static photography with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought quads table in the database with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Invitations To The Steering Committee with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought Quads Factoring with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Rights table with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought Bug: Edit group settings appear to all users but don't work. with 0 viewings related by tag "settings".
- Thought Feature: Author settings edit screen. with 0 viewings related by tag "settings".
- Thought Request group settings ... with 0 viewings related by tag "settings".
- Thought Seriously considering developing tagtalking.net based upon ... with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Pentals with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought group quads project with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought For humans to read and edit quads, they should be displayed and edited with humanly understood words. with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought items as quads with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought the proposed right to have any linkage of my persona within a service to my physical identity removed if I close my account with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought Quads Database for tagtalking with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought The Power of Quads To Generate a Web Form with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Me represented in the Linked Data Cloud with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought about: About Dabble DB with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Tina and a quad with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought nuff said with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought Using FastBlogIt with Agile Processes with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Draft for UNIVERSAL DATA ACCESS syntax with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Serendipituous playing in open LinkedData Spaces with 0 viewings related by tag "quads".
- Thought Quads for the minions with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought Virtual Rights $wish with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".
- Thought about: EFF: Homepage with 0 viewings related by tag "rights".