This is the link to TBL’s talk Hypertext and Our Collective Destiny<\/a> followed by some notes I made when listening. And at Hypertext and Our Collective Destiny<\/a> you will find the text approximating to the talk.<\/p>\n [Some Notes from TimBL\u2019s talk at Bush Symposium at MIT, 1995]<\/p>\n \u201cI had (and still have) a dream that the Web could be less of a television channel and more of an interactive sea of shared knowledge\u201d [~ 7 min] Neurons and documents and people can all have these random associations [~ 14 min] (a slide \ud83d\ude42 of this section is available here: https:\/\/www.w3.org\/Talks\/9510_Bush\/A1.html)<\/em><\/p>\n Some people say: Hypertext is very confusing, we\u2019ll get lost in cyberspace [~19] Structure. Tree. Building [~ 30 min]<\/p>\n The problem with modern architecture – it\u2019s not fractal. Labelling things. Setting up filters. All sorts of metadata. That will make the Web a whole lot nicer place.[~ 42 min] #semantics<\/strong> P.S. The panel discussion after the event<\/a> is also worth watching. There notes from it available here: http:\/\/cs.brown.edu\/memex\/Bush_Symposium_Panels.html#Day%202%20Panel<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Curious to find a common thread between Xanadu and the Semantic Web, I discovered a treasure trove of videos with Tim Berners Lee, Doug Engelbart, Ted Nelson and others talking about hypertext and all things interconnectivity in the very early … Continue reading As We May Link<\/h2>\n
Television vs. A Sea of Shared Knowledge<\/h3>\n
\n\u201cAnd interactive way of helping people work together\u201d [~ 9 min]
\n\u201cThe team management problem\u201d [~ 10 min]<\/p>\nNeurons, People, Data Objects<\/h3>\n
\nThe moment web objects will start talking to each other we will need to bring some rules [~ 17 min]
\nThe rules (between people, particles and web objects) [~ 18 min]<\/p>\nAssociations and Links as $, Readership, Confusion<\/h3>\n
\nBut soon, the \u201cclick here\u201d seized the public imagination:
\n![\"Slide](\"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/webhistory\/files\/2018\/01\/Slide-Links-COnfusion-TimBl-1995-BushSymposium-300x208.png\")
<\/a>
\n\u201cA little bit of semantics\u201d [23.06 min]<\/p>\nFractals and Information Plumbing<\/h2>\n
![\"Screen](\"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/webhistory\/files\/2018\/01\/Screen-Shot-of-a-Slide-Fractals-and-Architecture-TimBl-1995-BushSymposium-300x217.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nIf we can find a design for protocols that is fractal, we can scale. Structures working at both higher and lower level. [~ 30 min]
\nInformation plumbing (this person is gonna talk to these and these people, so that a human being feels comfortable when they have interactions at a widely diverse scales)[~ 32 min]
\nHuman interaction maybe has fractal properties [~ 33 min]
\nNo one person knows everything in the system [~ 33.40 min]
\nConfidentiality – can two agents communicate without other agents being aware of this [~ 34 min]
\nA machine that is the sum of ourselves and our data [~ 36 min]<\/p>\nSemantics [From the Questions and Answers Part]<\/h3>\n
\nBrowsing with different types of personas (anonymously, or in this and this role) [~ 42 min]
\nProtocols for reasonable behaviour [~43]
\nQuestion about Topology [~43]
\nType links [~44 min]
\nYou can make structure. You can make relationships.
\nDocuments being representative of thing, people, other documents.
\nStating relationships between objects is where things become really interesting.<\/p>\n
\nPeople abandoned semantics because they felt they cannot solve the AI problem. But in fact to put some semantics on the Web would enable so many things.When you invent link types you can represent the whole thing as a bunch of linked objects.[~45 – 47 min]<\/p>\n