Them++: Cybermen in the networked city

Snapped on The Strand on Thursday for my photoblog.

Cybermen weren’t like the Daleks. Daleks were frightening, but Daleks were meglomaniacs – bent on destruction and dominion. You couldn’t reason with them, and they were totally bonkers but you had to admire their zeal and passion.

Cybermen were destructive and terrifying, but they were also technocrats. The coldness of their approach to their enemies and allies, their willingness to lose a battle if they thought it would help win the war. Their almost managerial bureaucratic approach to problems.

Yup – the Daleks and the Cybermen: the Tories and New Labour of the cosmos.

Forefathers

Alex has written a fascinating article for Boxes&Arrows about a possible forefather of the web who predates Vannevar Bush:

“With the faceted philosophy of the UDC as backdrop, the Traité posited a universal “law of organization” declaring that no document could be properly understood by itself, but that its meaning becomes clarified through its influence on other documents, and vice versa. “[A]ll bibliological creation,” he said, “no matter how original and how powerful, implies redistribution, combination and new amalgamations.”

While that sentiment may sound postmodernist in spirit, Otlet was no semiotician; rather, he simply believed that documents could best be understood as three-dimensional, with the third dimension being their social context: their relationship to place, time, language, other readers, writers and topics. Otlet believed in the possibility of empirical truth, or what he called “facticity”—a property that emerged over time, through the ongoing collaboration between readers and writers. In Otlet’s world, each user would leave an imprint, a trail, which would then become part of the explicit history of each document.

Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson would later voice strikingly similar ideas about the notion of associative “trails” between documents. Distinguishing Otlet’s vision from the Bush-Nelson (and Berners-Lee) model is the conviction—long since fallen out of favor—in the possibility of a universal subject classification working in concert with the mutable social forces of scholarship.

Otlet’s vision suggests an intellectual cosmos illuminated both by objective classification and by the direct influence of readers and writers: a system simultaneously ordered and self-organizing, and endlessly re-configurable by the individual reader or writer.”

In other news from the ’eminence-grise’ desk, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn are visiting London and heading for the RIBA for an event called: “Vint Cerf & Bob Kahn Meet the BBC”.

An apt venue, as all these Net-forefathers (Otlet included) look like The Architect.

» Boxes and Arrows: Forgotten Forefather: Paul Otlet

Place and space

Couple of things:

I’ve started to re-read “Space is the machine” by Bill Hillier; and I’d forgotten the brilliant quote at the start by Sheep:

“…I thought that all that functional stuff had been refuted. Buildings aren’t machines.”

“You haven’t understood. The building isn’t the machine. Space is the machine.”

I’ll be back in London for the Bill Mitchell talk, so maybe see you there.

Administriviaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!

Please forgive slow response to email at the moment, I am on dialup in southern Lapland. Two days of intense, day long meetings are over, and now it’s time to fling myself down slippery snowcovered hills sides. Cross-country skiing has already been attempted with varying results, and tomorrow is snowboard, possibly; so this weekend I will be mainly falling on my arse.

Oww.

To Coyne, a phrase.

Quote of the day, by Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips:

“If there’s no God, there must be a lot of science. But if it’s just science, there’s no gloriousness out there. It seems like one defeats the other, and I like both.”

A close second:

“Natura in reticulum sua genera connexit, non in catenam; homines non possunt nisi catenam sequi, cum non plura simul possint sermone exponere.” – Albrecht von Haller

See AKMA for the translation…

Machinewhuffie

0xDefcafbad on the relationship between the semantic web and whuffie* :

“Were the Semantic Web to take off in a big and easy to use way, people could spend more time creating answers and less time answering questions, since the machines do the job of fielding the questions themselves.

Of course… without the Whuffie, where’s the motivation to provide the data? “

Wild, uninformed speculation follows: so, to motivate the machine, is there a need for machine whuffie? Of course, machines don’t feel shame or pride in their work (as yet) and so reputation must lie in things like uptime, bandwidth etc – the things that get echo’d in p2p node ratings etc. Also, in a network, if you got a got reputation as a node that was great at handling semantic web queries, then would a ‘rich-get-richer’** effect come into play, eventually overloading the node with queries? Here’s the homepage of Beulah Alunkal who is researching reputation systems in grid-computing. Need to read more about this sort of thing – not for pratical purposes, but for good SF ideas…

“Les arts de la rue”

John Thackara:

“The French – who, with their grands projets, have so long been focused on trophy buildings – have noted that ‘sociability’ and ‘liveability’ are now the key criteria for urban design and have gone off in a new direction: towards the development of live, participatory events as ways of adding value to a place. Formal cultural festivals have been booming in France for years, but the new craze is for ‘les arts de la rue’.”

» Icon magazine: November