Skip to content

A Reply to Lorand

In reply to the comment on

Lorand, I don’t have a problem with the importance of knowledge graphs as you put it.

I agree that what matters is to find a way to visually encode the author’s intention in such a way that the reader can most effectively critically access it. I completely agree that a visual approach to this is the way to go and I don’t think we disagree that textual components of this are likely going to be very powerful as well.

I have started some work on this for my Author word processor as Dynamic Views and I am working with Christopher Gutteridge and Gyuri Layos on their visual graph systems for

You say that “text is outdated because of the:”
– need of serialization,
– lack of exact definitions and structures,
– missing ability to follow morphing background.

I don’t agree, with the first and third, as my dynamic views system (and all other visual graphs show) but the second point I do agree with but I just wonder what nodes or symbols or statements or ‘things’ we have available to use which are rigidly defined and structured.

If you want to talk with Ted that’s quite a challenge these days. He is extremely busy with his work but if you like I can tell him to have a look at what you suggest if you send me something very specific.

Your angry tone betrays a frustration I can identify with but I can’t see much in terms of specifically what you suggest should be done. Please note, you trash talk linear text but you reply to me using exactly that. Please show me exactly, even with pencil drawings, I don’t mind, how you think you and me should be talking. No hyperbole, just description. I would very much like to engage new and different thoughts when presented clearly.

Published inCorrespondanceDeep LiteracyFuture Of TextInteractive Text Space Diagramjrnl