Skip to content

Tag: Engelbart

The Fine Art of Addressing

Dear Stephane, here are my thoughts ahead of our meeting on Thursday. Please forgive what may read as being patronising, I am only trying to be as clear as possible. James, Marc-Antoine, Gyuri, Robert, Houria, Stephan, Vint, Wendy, Les and Chris, this addresses our joint project as well of course. Please be gentle, this was written in the only early hours I have available at the moment and will therefore likely contain the odd egregious error. (Please also note that this post was edited based on just such an error spotted by Les and since it was posted via Liquid | Flow and contains paragraph-links (as discussed below, it broke the HTML a bit and that’s why there are such huge vertical gaps in places!).   


    • An adult Homo Erectus indicates to his son to look over by the trees–there is a threat hiding there.
    • My beautiful young son Edgar who just turned 1 last week points to the button on the tumble drier–he wants to turn it on.
    • A 20th  century professor quotes from a well known publication in her field and her readers are well aware of this work and reads the quote with critical context in mind. Meanwhile, a student of the professor has a brilliant insight from reading in other fields and cites a wide swathe of perspectives but it is unreasonable for his peers to go to a library and track down the books and journals and thumb thorough them to the sections he has brought forth (cited). His shining new insight therefore goes largely ignored by his community who don’t trust his sources and who find it unreasonable to check them.
    • A 21st century academic cites a passage from a history of modern politics but cannot refer to the page number since he is reading a commercially published electronic version of the document and this results in his reader blindly following his argument, without having practical recourse to check the veracity of the quote–which turns out to be taken wildly out of context.

These little scenarios are intended to highlight the primacy of being able to point while communicating and thinking and the ‘dirty little secret’ that citations are traditionally used to add weight to an argument within a known academic space and not as a way to connect to ideas and assertions further afield.  

  • A blogger cites an anchor to a paragraph in another blog to allow the reader to instantly check the section in context but the other blogger forgets to pay her domain fee and the domain name stops working.

This little scenario plays out every day: Link rot caused by domains disappearing.  

Pointing Arises from Addressing#

The issues here are central to what information is and to human thought and communication. If we cannot somehow point to something we cannot refer to it, put it in context or even think about it. Pointing is made possible by addressing. If the Homo Erectus could not use his finger and point to the trees he would not be able to indicate where the threat was and by son could not communicate to me that he wanted to press the button if there was no way for him to indicate the button. Similarly, the citations (a term which comes from the act of bringing forth) brings forth something in the 20th century academic’s shared knowledge yet was not powerful enough to bring forth that which was not already known to the reader since going to the library to find a document and then thumbing through it to the right page was not worth the effort. This problem was replicated in digital form for the 21st century academic. 

Synapse to Symbol#

The human brain’s memory is a highly associative system, not based on hard links but on associations based on accessible characteristics. We can jump around our memories based on how something ‘reminds us’ of something else. The act of authoring is to take what is in our brains and linearising it to make an argument, increasing some links and obscuring others. 

When we write something we are putting down models of our initial human thoughts, not the complete thought. We need to decide, actively and passively what of the thought we find most valuable and relevant to note down and we weave our thoughts into coherent arguments within a sentence and document ‘grammar’, which are connective rules for other brains to internalise the connections we have made explicit in the future (including our own brain in the future of course). 

The effort to preserve the wider context and soft associations is valuable for future analysis and so is the clarification of the linear argument the author primarily wants to make–issues which will continue to re-appear in the evolution of digital text. 

It is further going to be valuable to be able to shift the focus view of the linearised argument and the authors associative network, the readers associative network and those of other communities.  

Writing is taking soft, amorphous connective thoughts in the human biological brain into visual symbols in some substrate, originally physical, today virtual. This process changes the nature of the nodes, connections and associations (I define associations as relationships based on characteristics and proximity, not explicitly linked) and authorship is thus clearly a part of the thinking process (too many academics point this out but Andy Clark is a good one for this). 

The process of authorship, as opposed to the ‘writing’ of a basic pre-formed sentence in isolation, is the management of what should be highlighted, what should be hidden, what relationship is primary and how to contextualise the ‘argument’. This means that glossaries are hugely important since they explicate a specific field’s assumptions as a dictionary of the specific field.  

I have written on my notion of a Symbol Space and there will be much more work to be done on this in the future, in working out what the actual relationships and characteristics of the ‘storage of intellectual thought’-the symbols is about:  

Digital Symbol Addressing#

I have said previously that information is interaction since information must be inter-actable in order to be information and this lies at the root of my philosophy of how we should build and explore information spaces and the symbols they contain. An absolutely primary aspects of the interactions with information though is how the information can be connected, as outlines at length above (sorry about this, my wife and son are both still asleep so it’s quiet for thinking and writing and I don’t know how much more time I have today so as the joke goes, I wrote a long post since I didn’t have the time to write a shorter one).  

There are wondrous possibilities for how we can interact with symbols to compare, contrast, analyse, share and ‘live with’ symbols in a richly interactive environment, which is my dream to build and which I am investing my efforts in creating, though my macOS software projects Liquid | Author (word processor) and Liquid | Flow (text manipulation tool), both available from However, there are artificial constraints as to how we can point and that is what I’d like to highlight here, as well as potential solutions. 


I have written a proposal to Amazon for how to add links to sections in the Kindle Reader (what Doug Engelbart called High-resolution addressing), which is basically accepting that they are the ones who must do all the work since their books can only be read in their software, but there is a way to option it by using ‘deep-linking’ which can be referred to outside of their domain but which links back into it:  

A further and important aspect of the proposed pointing mechanism here (and in the Google Books approach below) is the separation of searching for a document by name/ID (and not it’s location) and searching within it–these should be separate issues, though tied in the addressing. This is important since domains disappear, identity systems such as ISBN and DOI will not necessarily be around forever and internal addressing schemes might change. 

Therefore the user should be given the opportunity to be a part of the ‘finding’ of the document if a basic, default link does not work (search the web, library, Amazon etc.) and how to then get to the part pointed out internally (by section ID or perhaps by simply keyword search). The smoothness and speed of this operation for the end user will be crucial for determining how much this will be used and thus how far this will (literally) expand our thinking space–something which will hit up against the requirement for robustness.  

Google Books#

Google Books can be used to access pages in printed books digitally, a capability I’m building into Author currently: When reading a book citation the user can click ‘Search Google Books’ and Author will send a search string to search the book and then to search within it based on the quoted text, which will then (hopefully) display the original page.  


In blogs I have build a wordPress posting mechanism into Liquid | Flow which makes all the paragraphs have anchors which a reader can use: The anchor is at the start of a paragraph and there is an invisible link to it at the end of the paragraph which the reader can ctrl-click to copy. For example:  

Deep literacy#

What I am working towards here is providing the tools for the user to develop ever deeper literacies and to do this I must build tools with fine-grained abilities to point and manipulate information stored in symbols. This can only be done if the infrastructures technically, legally and commercially allow for it, otherwise I am only building small sandboxes and not a richly interactive liquid information environment which truly augments our intellect and connect our thinking to increase our collective IQ. 

The End.

1 Comment

‘Kindle Opens The Book with deep-links’ (proposal)

Kindle books have revolutionised reading on tablets and computers but I would like to point out an area of potential great improvement with a relatively small and well protected investment: 

Pointing is a way of communicating we have had since childhood and which originates much earlier in our evolution than even homo-sapiens. An important type of pointing is a citation, where an author points to a specific section (such as a page, in a printed book) to refer to a specific point. Although printed citations were slow to follow, since the reader would need to find the book cited and then the page number, this is actually more convenient than with digital books; A digital book does not have page numbers and a commercial book, with copy-protection, does not allow a citation to point inside it. This means that not only does the reader need to find the book as before, it also means that once the book is found the reader will have to trawl through the book to find the passage cited. 

This constrains the dialog between books, one of the fundamental building blocks of intelligent, reasoned conversation. Not only can authors cite incorrectly, they can also ignore the context of any citation with impunity due to the effort to check.  

This opens up opportunities for what has become called Fake News. An author can make an assertion and bolster the assertion with multiple citations which gives courage to the converted yet no access for analysis for the critical reader, not only for the first citation, but also for the citations cited in the source–the network of discourse becomes opaque and intellectual curiosity constrained.  

The reasons for this deficit in intellectual capability comes from the copy protection of the books, which is an important aspect of their production and distribution so is not an issue in itself. The proposed solution offered here does not interfere with copy protection because it will be a solution built in to the Kindle reader, not by third party reading systems. 

The proposed way it would work#

The core functionality would work like this: 

    • The user comes across a section of text which she would like to cite and she selects the text and a new option appears: Copy As Citation.
    • The user then goes into her word processing application or web design application and Pastes this Citation which appears as text in quotes with a URL appended, to make sure it will be active/clickable in any reader application.
    • Once she publishes, a reader can then click on this citation and it will appear as a deep-link into the Kindle book and the user’s software will ask the reader if he would like to open it in Kindle. He can choose to do this (with the opportunity of purchasing the book if not already owned) and the Kindle reader will interpret the coded deep-link information and jump to that part of the book.
    • Kindle books could optionally show a larger section around the cited text as a preview before the purchase, allowing the reader to look inside the book, as is possible when purchasing the book through the Amazon store.

A software extension to open the book further could then add this: 

  • The URL which is Copied As Citation would always include all the bibliographic references to the book (encoded in plain text after the main address for any software to be able to read it, separately from the proprietary and protected Kindle location) so that if the book is no longer sold by Kindle or is available through the users library, the user can still click on the link and choose to open another instance of that book.
  • Therefore the Kindle deep-link becomes a convenient and value-added feature, but does not preclude access to other means of accessing the book and would therefore be more politically valuable.
  • The way the internal link would work in this scenario would simply be as a keyword search based on the cited text.
  • For this the reader software would need to be updated, something that an ‘Open Kindle’ system would encourage and show leadership with.



The end user benefit for the author would be more credible writing, since citations can be accessed instantly and provide the full context (in a purchased book) and for the reader it would make it much more efficient to really get to grips with the text. 

The societal benefit would be an increased standard of intellectual discourse. 

The benefit for Amazon would be doing something concrete to fight Fake News and support clear and open academic and political dialogue.  

In Summary#

In summary, I am offering this as an academic at the University of Southampton and a software developer who is working with the co-inventor of the Internet, Vint Cerf, on making electronic text ever more powerful.  

We host an annual Future of Text Symposium and this year we are putting together a special Symposium honouring our late friend and (practically speaking) inventor of personal computing, Doug Engelbart If this is agreed to then the 50th Anniversary of Doug Engelbart’s ‘mother of all demos’ event could be a great announcement day for this, since what he called high-resolution addressing was core to his philosophy. 

We have discussed this approach with numerous libraries, including representatives of the Library of Congress with the response always being that this would be a capability of great social and intellectual value. 

Frode Hegland, 



1 Comment

Glossaries Glorified into Core Connectors

Personal Context/Diary Note 


This was written the morning after calling Jack Park to discuss using Glossaries as a means to tie documents and knowledge graphs together. I have since slept and I am now enjoying a nice single shot of espresso. Meanwhile, Jame’s sent an email with a great start to defining the goal and framework of a DKR, which I hope he will also blog so that I can refer to it easily here, while having yet another espresso at the Groucho. The approach comes from how yesterday morning I spent some time thinking about how I am kind of ‘representing’ the document approach and Jack Park and David Price representing knowledge graphs in databases approach and maybe I should quite simply switch my focus. For a while. I therefore thought about designing front end aspects of a knowledge graph while out for a walk with my son(!) across from Hammersmith to Wimbledon via the Common, and for some reason it hit me that a glossary definition might be a jump point between the two systems. I don’t know how this came about but here is the idea: 


Glossaries Integrated into Knowledge Graphs 


Doug sold me on the importance of glossaries, defined as definitions local to a document, author, field or some other particular use. It struck me that a glossary definition is made up of words and that at least some of these words also have glossary entries and that this might very well be a crude and simple knowledge graph!  




I enter “A DKR is produced using OHS technologies” which has two nodes: DKR as the term being defined and OHS being a term the DKR is being defined with, using the connection ‘is produced using’. This means we have two terms which are nodes and a link with a specific type.  


Benefit: Reuse  


This approach would allow for more easy re-use of contents (by having terms compressed and expanded into glossary terms in body text) and for rich visual and computational mapping of the terms in knowledge graph spaces with little initial effort when creating entries/nodes or integrating with them and keeps the various media intact all the while being deeply interrelated.  


Glossary Entries as Knowledge Graph Nodes 


So what I proposed to Jack is that we can use this as a kind of a human interface (as opposed to strict data transfer interface) between a regular document and a knowledge graph: A user can add to the knowledge graph by using this type of a ‘glossary’ interface when authoring and when reading a whole (or many whole) graphs can be accessible in this way. The reverse is of course also true, that when in a graph environment the user can benefit from what’s been added outside the graph environment.  


So to achieve this we would have to build an interface for different platforms which can be invoked outside a knowledge graph but use its data. Jack said this is exactly what he and his team have been looking at but they called it something like wormholes or portals or teleports not glossaries but the principle remains pretty similar.  




I have posted a walkthrough scenario here:  


Importance of Powerful Views 


Jack further discussed the importance of doing knowledge transforms, similar to how we can do mathematical transforms and this is just a powerful way of looking at it. I simply added the perspective of the user having the ability to jump around, to see same or related information in very different contexts and how I was annoyed that I refer to Headings as Nodes in Author when collapsing into Outline/Dynamic View and how that went further and how I found that the word Node actually basically means ‘knot’ and this removes the notion of a Node as being something solid and the connections between them something more etherial. Why not provide the user with the ability to flip the visual display so that Nodes becomes connecting lines and the connecting lines become the Nodes?  


Seeing New Perspectives 


BTW, I use purposefully visual vocabulary when discussing connecting lines since they could be so many things created in so many ways and interactable in so many ways, as I’ve been working on defining for some time and hope to put up a, yes, Glossary on, with the collaboration with all of you and particularly with our colleagues in Russia; Timour, Elena and Irina, based on Skype meetings, perhaps on where we can write our definitions and where we disagree, if and when we inevitably usefully disagree, for a communal growth of this particular knowledge space.  


Legacy Anchoring 


This approach allows for interaction with a knowledge graph either natively or when in a more familiar environment and, crucially, allows for the user to switch between the environments at will and thus get the best of both worlds, or, to put it in a more Doug way, they get powerfully different ViewSpec options.  




There are a lot of implementation issues of course, such as: 


• what, if any, knowledge graph data is baked into the word processing document at the point of publishing the document  

• what will the human-computer interfaces will be like; will they be plain text based like the original idea suggested or more click-on-categories and so on style?  

• how should the data transfers be between these components? JSON-LD? 

• how can we implement a frame for this on different OS platforms  

• when should the data be integrated, immediately or use WordPress etc. as a glossary storage until a publish or other action? 

• & more.  




I don’t know the answers, but I think this approach lends itself well to the criteria and goals proposed by James and should therefore be part of our core investigations.  


I eagerly await comments here in the comment box, as blog posts or elsewhere.  


Leave a Comment