Difference between revisions of "Talk:Seaside"

From Organic Design wiki
(Our main vision for the 3D environment is the modern Geoscope)
m (Notes 19.01.11: typos, punctuation)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Integration of Seaside with OpenCobalt ==
 
== Integration of Seaside with OpenCobalt ==
 
Some questions/thoughts  that came to mind that I would like to clarify:
 
Some questions/thoughts  that came to mind that I would like to clarify:
 +
 
=== 3D ===
 
=== 3D ===
* having seen the screenshots of the 3D world browser, looking beyond the cheesy atari-game-ness of the demos, it is clear that this capability should have some powerful potential for data visualization. I'm not sure that the best use of this capability will be navigation amongst avatars and e-toys -- at least, not for adult collaborators. I'm not even sure what gain in productivity would be achieved n browsing text pages in 3d perspective. Text pages are not even readable or meaningful until viewed squarely and close up. Nevertheless some ideas come to mind:
+
''3D comment moved to [[Talk:OpenCobalt]]''
** expansion of the desktop area - à la ''Minority Report'' and ''Avatar'' for manipulations, processing, procedures or operations using gestures, for example
 
** an improvement over the hierarchical file system paradigm - some people have a memory "filing system" that is chronologically indexed ''(I know I received that letter mid-August last year)'' ; other people tend to index things spacially ''(last year's tax filing is in the third pile from the left on the middle shelf by the printer)''
 
: I know that the world wide web structure is in fact 3d, although it is generally not represented geographically. But much data is powerful when visualised geographically.
 
 
 
Have you thought of or learned about any other uses for this paradigm?
 
:Our main vision for the 3D environment is the modern [[Geoscope]] --[[User:Nad|nad]] 11:27, 18 January 2011 (PST)
 
  
 
=== seaside<-->browser bridge ===
 
=== seaside<-->browser bridge ===
 
As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited?
 
As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited?
 +
 +
== Notes 19.01.11 ==
 +
 +
;1. Standardising
 +
 +
Separate functionality of viewer from the viewed data structure.
 +
Spilt into a standard ontology for the data, with 3d specific aspects being in a cobalt sub-layer (explain).
 +
All manipulation of data is done via an API, so that any user can do all things (non) cobalt user can do.
 +
The viewer (3D), which is separated out, should also have an API that allows 3D snapshots/video of views to be requested.
 +
 +
;2. Classes and instances
 +
 +
Class/instance relationship - for re-use and templating, inheritance in the normal OO way.
 +
We use an instance-based paradigm whereby any node can be treated as a class.
 +
dot files - data specific to a particular viewer, such as the seaside application cobalt viewer, maybe a mobile viewer goes in/has context-specific (it's own) nodes available to store its data in without clogging .. exactly equivalent to how applications store data in .dot folder extension, for example /home/fred/.thunderbird
 +
Workflow and execution (nodal model) -
 +
 +
;3. The Workflow Interface
 +
 +
The application for how workflows are enabled
 +
This application is a viewer, therefore same functionality made in cobalt
 +
 +
;4. Unified Ontology
 +
 +
DHT
 +
Eventual consistency
 +
 +
;5. Our take on time
 +
 +
Shared spectrum and queries
 +
 +
Note: Include a discussion about the Geoscope, scale etc

Latest revision as of 02:27, 19 January 2011

Integration of Seaside with OpenCobalt

Some questions/thoughts that came to mind that I would like to clarify:

3D

3D comment moved to Talk:OpenCobalt

seaside<-->browser bridge

As I understand it, seaside, in its current implementation, is the browser and repository. In other words it is a peer in the peer to peer network and contributes to the dht storage as well as the virtual routing system. I can see how it can also become an http server, acting as a bridge between the peer to peer network and traditional browser clients. However browser users, since they are not using the seaside client, will only be able to consume and contribute content, but will not be contributing storage or routing. What sort of incentives will there be to run the peer to peer client? Perhaps the capabilities offered by the bridge will be limited?

Notes 19.01.11

1. Standardising

Separate functionality of viewer from the viewed data structure. Spilt into a standard ontology for the data, with 3d specific aspects being in a cobalt sub-layer (explain). All manipulation of data is done via an API, so that any user can do all things (non) cobalt user can do. The viewer (3D), which is separated out, should also have an API that allows 3D snapshots/video of views to be requested.

2. Classes and instances

Class/instance relationship - for re-use and templating, inheritance in the normal OO way. We use an instance-based paradigm whereby any node can be treated as a class. dot files - data specific to a particular viewer, such as the seaside application cobalt viewer, maybe a mobile viewer goes in/has context-specific (it's own) nodes available to store its data in without clogging .. exactly equivalent to how applications store data in .dot folder extension, for example /home/fred/.thunderbird Workflow and execution (nodal model) -

3. The Workflow Interface

The application for how workflows are enabled This application is a viewer, therefore same functionality made in cobalt

4. Unified Ontology

DHT Eventual consistency

5. Our take on time

Shared spectrum and queries

Note: Include a discussion about the Geoscope, scale etc