wed 1 march with Mark and Chris

I met with Mark and Chris with the aim of further working to see where we might collaborate. The conclusion is that we both care about making academic documents more readable and we need to spend more time designing the system and work on getting funding for the work.

The main thrust of what we need is to build a liquid view style system for both thinking and for doing literature reviews and this needs deeply literate documents (documents with structure and meta-information facilitation interaction) to make the interactions possible.

Chris thinks that maybe organisations which funds open access would like to help with this, since deeply literate documents would be more visible in the literature review and therefore their documents would be seen more + it works with the point of open access.

We also discussed the spaces within spaces for the liquid view, going from all information into academic and then into the users literary review citations and finally into the document. We agree that the liquid view needs to be seriously powerful and therefore done natively.

We also discussed the notion of deep literacy and my feeling is that we agree that it’s a notion to push for, to promote.



‘Fake News’

I was distressed to be part of this discussion, which is the second discussion where ‘the left’ has said it’s ok to lie as long as it’s illustrative: