On May 9, 8:20 am, becker <superjaberwo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I agree that there is a distinction between "hypertext" and
> "hypertexts." In fact, I prefer to capitalize Hypertext when thinking
> about it in wide, genre-like terms and to refer to hypertext documents
> when thinking about anything else. But I'm not sure what you are
> getting at with the idea of having an individual hypertext for every
> situation that warrants it because that is the way it already is.
>
> Every hypertext depends on usage for its existence. Without readers/
> users navigating and clicking through a hypertext, it would be no
> different from a linear, printed text. If it were not for context,
> there would be no hypertexts at all (if you believe in the definition
> of Hypertext that focuses on linking as its key trait).
>
> What I think you may be getting at is naming a few categories of
> hypertexts, like Ad Hoc HTs. This is similar to what, I believe,
> Stuart Multhrop has done in an article whose name escapes me at the
> moment, except he was working with patterns of navigation in hypertext
> fiction. Perhaps it is time to categorize hypertext on a new level,
> but I'm hesitant about that idea. Can we limit Hypertext's potential
> by trying to categorize the hypertexts we use?
Here are two extremes - closely controlled hypertext systems, such as
those "augmenting human intellect", on the one hand, and the loosely
controlled WWW on the other. The former is pure research at this
technological level, and the latter is what it is.
"Individual" hypertexts might be a transitional phase from these
extremes to an intermediate state with more organization.
The point is that current technology is not fit to process semantic
dimensions of Hypertext (I agree to capitalize it in some cases :).
People can, but they have no good tools.
Making small situational hypertexts of human scale and with built-in
scalability can serve at least two purposes - to accumulate machine-
processable data for tasks related to the Semantic Web, and to meet
very practical needs. Literary hypertexts are far beyond this
approach. It's all about reference and "how to" stuff, maybe some
descriptions at the moment. It's all we can do with the available
technology.
That's why I chose Google Search for the topic of my experimental
hypertext. It is manageable in size, simple in logic, and practicable.
There is a resemblance between such a hypertext and a website. The
difference is in the degree of organization and readiness for higher-
level integration. It is a kind of an ebook, but not a paper-book
imitation.
One way to re-use such hypertexts would be to apply systems like Topic
Maps to already semantically organized information. Ted Nelson said
something to that effect in his recent presentation, without naming
too many names:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8329031368429444452&q=hypertext
What's most important, these hypertexts are semantically "mature",
unlike almost all of websites which have little to do with the left
hemisphere. Wikipedia is close, but again, if you compare a wiki with
my site, you'll see that wiki's are too close to paper to make me
happy. Not that my site is perfect, it only uses more of Hypertext
capabilities than many other similar products.
Thanks for your response,
|
