Menu
▾
▴
tgarden-general — general tgarden signal to noise
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(24) |
Aug
|
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(15) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2002-04-19 12:37:15
|
Hi, this is s very simple set of geomtry-detectors ssuitable for realtime shape recognition. http://immi.inesc.pt/cali/abstracts.html#grec99 Yes, we do NOT care to recognize prescribed shapes, but maybe we can use the same measures to provide stroke-shape parameters that we might read off from the location info. time and space resolution would be a problem. Xin Wei |
|
From: n_ki <ni...@f0...> - 2002-02-19 18:47:27
|
[19.02.2002 =B0 13:28 Uhr] Sha Xin Wei --> which makes it even more of a pity that we only received responses from s= ome of the developers, designers and institutions involved :( >thank you so much for doing this! it is crucially important and in=20 >the long run perhaps the most lasting contribution from the tgardens=20 >of 2000. > >good luck and thanks, >xinwei |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2002-02-19 18:23:51
|
dear maja, thank you so much for doing this! it is crucially important and in the long run perhaps the most lasting contribution from the tgardens of 2000. good luck and thanks, xinwei -- __________________________________________________ sha xin wei 196 warren street ne * atlanta georgia 30317 * usa 404-377-4345 * 404-579-4944 (cell) xi...@mi... |
|
From: maja k. <ma...@f0...> - 2002-02-19 18:16:46
|
Dear tg-2001-ers, after long months of waiting for developer's responses i finally managed to make a tg2001 feedback dvd. i have a version now that plays ok on OSX, but the slideshows that i put on it misbehave on other systems - when you enter a slide show, you can't get back to the menu. you can play all the visitors'interviews videos, though. I will try to fix this problem in the coming weeks, but i might not get to it until march. so for anyone who wants this dvd in the state that it is now (read: not optimal at all), let me know and i'll send it over. I am also making a PR DVD that should be ready in the coming month too. I really apologise for the delay, but it seems that not many people are willing to look back on last year's production, and i didn't have enough info until 2 weeks ago. from then on it's been a software install-deinstall-reinstall-update nightmare here. it will get there though - and i prefer to do it good, rather than something that you can't use anywhere because it's not functioning properly. if any of you needs some of the info/materials very quickly, let me know and i can burn a cd for you with some raw videos on it. i just wanted to let you know that i didnt forget about this, and that i am working on it, and andand.... it will be in your mailbox soon(ish). -maja |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2002-02-19 06:30:53
|
Hi, Anyone, please send opinions facts re: http://www.equator.ac.uk/ ? Anything interesting re TG there? Cheers, Xin Wei |
|
From: Ozan C. <oza...@im...> - 2002-02-03 13:19:20
|
My first introduction to this was when Maja and Dave were spinning static frames outlined with EL-wire in the backyard of Starlab.. Today I ran into a generalization of this: http://www.actuality-systems.com/ It'll be 80k USD when it's out but that doesn't make it less interesting (for those with a garage lab and eagerness to build these with cheaper techniques) :) ozan |
|
From: James R. <gt...@ma...> - 2002-01-21 17:08:59
|
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2002-01-20 18:41:58
|
Daer TGardeners, I got a nice email from Michelle Kasprzak at the InterAccess Electronic Media Arts Centre in Canada announcing a microprocessor platform. It may be interesting to compare with what Chester Fitchett <fit...@cp...> has made with IRX board + his Phidget software toolkit. Would any one in TML or the TG groups be able to ettend their meeting (using iVisit) Thursday, January 24 2002 at 7 PM, EST and report back ? Cheers, Xin Wei At 11:26 AM -0500 1/20/02, MK wrote: >Calling all artists, educators, engineers and copyleft interventionists: > >The Art Interface Device (AID) is a microprocessor platform for building >electronic installation art. It is a device that allows artists to >process a variety of inputs and outputs for use in interactive >installation and performance artworks. > >All are invited to attend the an information session about the Art >Interface Device on Thursday, January 24 2002 at 7 PM, EST. The meeting >will be held at InterAccess, which is located at 401 Richmond St. W, >Suite 444, Toronto, Canada. We are very interested in having remote >participants involved in this project. You can join our meeting via >the iVisit conferencing software. Get the set-up and timezone details at: >http://www.interaccess.org/aid/ivisit.html > >The associated AID web site will serve as a library of "worked" solutions >to common electronic sensing, control and interfacing requirements. From >this site the AID user community can download and contribute instructions, >parts lists, circuit diagrams and other information relevant to the >creation of electronic art. > >The AID system will be distributed under the General Public License and >developed by the AID user community - that means you! > >This information session will present the AID concept, recruit people >interested in creating, developing, and using this tool, and initiate the >project production cycle. > >More detailed information is available at http://www.interaccess.org/aid/ > >AID is a project of InterAccess - Electronic Media Arts Centre, and is >funded by the Canada Council. Xin Wei |
|
From: maja <ma...@f0...> - 2001-12-18 19:04:38
|
hello, it has been a month since i sent the previous email re: questions for developers, that can help us document the TGarden 2001 (process and results) objectively, with the input from all developers. Unfortunately i have only received replies from 4 people, and i don't think that would provide a complete picture of the project. I have kept most of December free for doing TG documentation, with the aim to finish it in 2001, but i'm afraid that i will have to postpone this as we'd rather have a good than incomplete docs. I can get back to this only from January 15th, and then only for 2 weeks. Therefore I suggest **** January 15 2002 **** as a strict deadline for the answers/comments/documents/suggestions regarding the documentation of TG 2001 production. Whatever I get by that date will be included, but if you don't send me anything, please don't complain that the documentation is not reflecting your standpoint afterwards ;). The collaboration and licensing agreement will be dealt with in January as well, although a lot software patches in CVS have the copyright/GPL licensing included already. -maja On 19|11|2001 at 15:42, ma...@f0... (maja) wrote: > Dear all, > > after a month of not much TGarden talk, hopefully we have > gained enough distance > from the project to be able to answer some questions > regarding the work process > and the play-space as developed during the TGarden > production 2001. > > This information will be used in the documentation about > this production, to be > distributed internally to all developers and project > partners at the end of > december 2001. Other parts of the documentation, that you > will receive are: > > - Play SpaceVideo Documentation from Linz and Rotterdam > - TG-garments video and report from Linz and Rotterdam > - TG system usage reports > - archived documents in FoAM CVS repository > - archived media in FoAM CVS repository > - TG2001 code in the FoAM CVS repository. > [Copyright + licensing to be made explicit. A copy of the > GPL should be included > in each directory, and copyright assigned appropriately.] > - Written contracts considering the usage and modification > of TGarden results by > all partners > > > If I ommitted something, please let me know. > > I would very much appreciate if you could answer the > Questions for Developers > (beneath) and send your answers back to me before december > 15, so that i can > complete the documentation before the end of the year. > Please also include your > postal addresses which we should use when sending you the > hardcopy > documentation. > > For people who were not present at Ars Electronica and Las > Palmas events, please > answer the questions that you _do_ know an answer to, or add > your opinions in > the 'other comments section'. > > Also, please forward this email to anyone you think should > answer these > questions and is not included in the recipients list. > > > > Thanks a lot in advance! > > warm regards > -maja > > > Questions for developers > > I TGarden Play-Space > > 1] TGarden Room as a whole: > > 1. Did the room/system do what you expected it to do? What > yes/what no? > > 2. How would you improve the whole? > > 3. Did the visitors respond as expected? Did they comprehend > what was happening? > > 4. When you tested the system yourself, did it fulfill your > expectations what > did/didn't? > > 5. Is the project open enough to accommodate different > design approaches and > styles? > > 6. Are we allowing enough space for change and adaptation of > the system based on > players' activity? > > 7. Is the design scalable (simple->complex, single > player->multiple players, > crash proof-> experimental...)? > > 8. What did you think of the event-flow during the public > experiments? What > should be changed? > > 2] Components > > 1. Comments on design, usability, implementation of > clothing? > > 2. Comments on design, usability, implementation of sound? > > 3. Comments on design, usability, implementation of visuals? > > 4. Comments on design, usability, implementation of sensing > and input interface > design (including sensors, vision tracking, wireless > modules)? > > 5. Comments on design, usability, technical implementation > of room logic (Oz, > including the dynamics engine)? > > > 3] Interaction > > 1. Do you think the interaction with the TG system is > intuitive enough -- i.e., > can the visitors be left alone to play, without the need to > tell them what to > do? > > 2. What should be changed/improved in the UI for the > visitors? > > 3. What should be changed/improved in the UI for the > developers/designers? > > > > > > > II TGarden Work Process > > 1. What do you think about the production process of the > TG2001? > 1a. Distributed process > 1b. Work in the same physical space > > 2. Specify major problems, and why do you think they > occurred? > 4. Were you informed enough about the development in all > parts of the project? > 3. How can we improve the process in the future? > > > > > > III Other comments |
|
From: n_ki <ni...@f0...> - 2001-12-13 21:13:58
|
[06.12.2001 =B0 10:49 Uhr] Sha Xin Wei --> >password the tech-doc directory, and leave the docs in place ?! im not sure this really deals with the wider issue,=20 essentially the quesiton is something like this -> "how can we manage a distributed, open collaborative process of developme= nt and documentation, which is compatible with academic publication?" due to the nature of your work, i think you are in a unique position to a= ttempt to answer this. and since im not sure exaclty why the docs have to be pub= lically inaccesable for papers based on this r+d to be published, i cant really a= dd too much here. i dont know what journal in particular u want to publish in, = or their requirements but,. i was under the impression its quite ok to cite previous work in papers, and still be a valid presentation of research, a= s long as the paper isnt published verbatim elsewhere ? i suppose it all depend= s on how we/journal-in-question interpret "original, unpublished research".=20 =20 would your target jornal(s) consider working docs to be 'published'? as= you mentioned, there are many models of publishing., and im sure we can assme= ble parts for our own purposes. =20 then, how does this relate to keeping the tech docs available to those working on teh project, as well as 3rd parties who are interested observe= rs? >in fact , let's make a pre-print directory or technical report=20 >repository (which may be discontiguous dirs), with the same password=20 >? that would make it easier to share some preliminary papers,=20 >destined for pub track. on the f0.am server at least we deal with access control on a per module = basis (ie. tg-code, tg-docs. etc) there is an administration/funding module wh= ich uses this technique. =20 would it be worth adding tg-prepress ?+ then we have the problem of when/how/who takes material and integrates it= into 'public' documents., is this another can of worms maybe? >> is anyone still interested in forming this consortium as a legal=20 >>entity though? > >i am. is this legally painful? any ideas on multinational-non-profit-organisational-consortium type laws= ?+ =20 if you want to talk in realtime about this (or just in general!),. im u= sually close to maja's phone. =20 nk=20 =20 ][] [ http://f0.am ] [ foundation of aperiodic mesmerism [] ] ] |
|
From: n_ki <ni...@f0...> - 2001-12-12 20:20:58
|
[07.12.2001 =B0 14:11 Uhr] David Tonnesen --> >Fluid dynamics is indeed cool. nice to see such an impromptu discussion about it :) >to 2D flows. Jos Stam of Alias|Wavefront >wrote a really nice SIGGRAPH paper a few >years ago for fast + stable, though >inaccurate, integration of the Navier-Stokes >equation. > >Also nice references below. =20 > >Thinking of implementing this yourself? >Go for it. im using a quite probably inacurate + not very fast version of n-s using = the euler method to generate series of impulses for rythmic structures + slid= ing from one pattern into another.=20 =20 http://web.fm/prjx/2001/cd1/fm_2.navier_nervt-quak.mp3 preliminary experiments going well,. but more in the 'art' side of the b= illiard table than 'science' for now,. perhaps a bit more reading :/ =20 nk =20 =20 ][] [ http://f0.am ] [ foundation of aperiodic mesmerism [] ] ] |
|
From: inSECT22 <i2...@te...> - 2001-12-12 12:23:14
|
http://www.v2.nl/Projects/2001/images/tgarden/tgarden_foto.html |
|
From: David T. <ton...@ac...> - 2001-12-08 21:03:49
|
FYI, in case you all have not seen this web site on textiles and wearable computing. http://www.sensatex.com/ - dave |
|
From: David T. <ton...@ac...> - 2001-12-07 19:11:59
|
XW, Fluid dynamics is indeed cool. And as you mention below, integrating the PDEs is indeed intricate, or in my language I would say computationally expensive. There are particle based models for this, but you will not get real time performance unless you have a really fast computer OR limit yourself to 2D flows. Jos Stam of Alias|Wavefront wrote a really nice SIGGRAPH paper a few years ago for fast + stable, though inaccurate, integration of the Navier-Stokes equation. Also nice references below. Thinking of implementing this yourself? Go for it. Cheers, Dave > From: Sha Xin Wei <xi...@mi...> > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:11:47 -0500 > > hurrah for fluid dynamics! > > with fluid dynamics models we could introduce parameterizable > turbulence. we could simulate cavitation, onset of boiling. > but to get some intuition that could provide useful heuristics -- > hacking lattices gets old ;) -- it helps to get the heart of the > matter, so to speak. these are two people have thought deeply about > matter, C. Fefferman and L Caffarelli. and here are truly beautiful > paper and video by them: > > http://www.claymath.org/prizeproblems/navierstokes.htm > > is there a way to do this systematically ? > > there are numerical analysis packages for this sort of thing: > given an equation of state -- density, viscosity etc., cell geometry > , and dynamics information like flow constraints/cell (or gradients > from a field), integrate in time and space. > > (in the cat group we had a class framework for numerics underneath > any simulation/game that could be specified in a compact way) could > josh's jit house the lattice computation for integrating all sorts of > grid-based de's and pdes? > > it is extremely intricate to integrate any but the simplest de's but, > we have the advantage of cheating around singularities. it would be > very strategic (and elegant) to use the measures that numerical pde > and geometric measure theory people have developed to measure > blow-up, as a way to "paramterize" the formation of singularities. > note singularities may have extremely complicated non-isolated > structure. which is why they're so fascinating to us, yes? > > if one goes this way, then it would be worthwhile understanding > integral operators and implementing them as convolutions of kernels. > there's a mathematician from yale who gave a nice series of talks at > stanford 4-5 years ago on this -- interpreting kernels of integral > operators as bitmaps, and then using graphics technology to perform > it. one application: wavelet decomp for *non-periodic* pattern. > we used it for image-based query byu content. worked ok -- it was > installed into the qbic system. maybe we can use to make pattern > games seeded by input pattern. > > ( > take video > compute wavelet transform > vary the highest coeffs > inverse transform > project image > ) > > cheers, > xinwei > > _______________________________________________ > tgarden-general mailing list > tga...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tgarden-general > -- David Tonnesen http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~davet/contact.html |
|
From: Ozan C. <oza...@im...> - 2001-12-07 15:41:39
|
synchronicity? Right when I was playing with the logistic map to learn the basics of dynamic systems. I just wanted to point out this paper http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lizb/papers/dance-paper.html Btw: I'm following the course notes of Liz Bradley on dynamic systems for learning about this stuff, i found it helpful: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lizb/chaos-course.html ozan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sha Xin Wei" <xi...@mi...> To: "TGarden general" <tga...@li...> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 4:11 PM Subject: [tgarden-general] hurrah for fluid dynamics! > hurrah for fluid dynamics! > > with fluid dynamics models we could introduce parameterizable > turbulence. we could simulate cavitation, onset of boiling. > > but to get some intuition that could provide useful heuristics -- > hacking lattices gets old ;) -- it helps to get the heart of the > matter, so to speak. these are two people have thought deeply about > matter, C. Fefferman and L Caffarelli. and here are truly beautiful > paper and video by them: > > http://www.claymath.org/prizeproblems/navierstokes.htm > > is there a way to do this systematically ? > > there are numerical analysis packages for this sort of thing: > given an equation of state -- density, viscosity etc., cell geometry > , and dynamics information like flow constraints/cell (or gradients > from a field), integrate in time and space. > > (in the cat group we had a class framework for numerics underneath > any simulation/game that could be specified in a compact way) could > josh's jit house the lattice computation for integrating all sorts of > grid-based de's and pdes? > > it is extremely intricate to integrate any but the simplest de's but, > we have the advantage of cheating around singularities. it would be > very strategic (and elegant) to use the measures that numerical pde > and geometric measure theory people have developed to measure > blow-up, as a way to "paramterize" the formation of singularities. > note singularities may have extremely complicated non-isolated > structure. which is why they're so fascinating to us, yes? > > if one goes this way, then it would be worthwhile understanding > integral operators and implementing them as convolutions of kernels. > there's a mathematician from yale who gave a nice series of talks at > stanford 4-5 years ago on this -- interpreting kernels of integral > operators as bitmaps, and then using graphics technology to perform > it. one application: wavelet decomp for *non-periodic* pattern. > we used it for image-based query byu content. worked ok -- it was > installed into the qbic system. maybe we can use to make pattern > games seeded by input pattern. > > ( > take video > compute wavelet transform > vary the highest coeffs > inverse transform > project image > ) > > cheers, > xinwei > > _______________________________________________ > tgarden-general mailing list > tga...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tgarden-general > |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2001-12-07 15:10:22
|
hurrah for fluid dynamics! with fluid dynamics models we could introduce parameterizable turbulence. we could simulate cavitation, onset of boiling. but to get some intuition that could provide useful heuristics -- hacking lattices gets old ;) -- it helps to get the heart of the matter, so to speak. these are two people have thought deeply about matter, C. Fefferman and L Caffarelli. and here are truly beautiful paper and video by them: http://www.claymath.org/prizeproblems/navierstokes.htm is there a way to do this systematically ? there are numerical analysis packages for this sort of thing: given an equation of state -- density, viscosity etc., cell geometry , and dynamics information like flow constraints/cell (or gradients from a field), integrate in time and space. (in the cat group we had a class framework for numerics underneath any simulation/game that could be specified in a compact way) could josh's jit house the lattice computation for integrating all sorts of grid-based de's and pdes? it is extremely intricate to integrate any but the simplest de's but, we have the advantage of cheating around singularities. it would be very strategic (and elegant) to use the measures that numerical pde and geometric measure theory people have developed to measure blow-up, as a way to "paramterize" the formation of singularities. note singularities may have extremely complicated non-isolated structure. which is why they're so fascinating to us, yes? if one goes this way, then it would be worthwhile understanding integral operators and implementing them as convolutions of kernels. there's a mathematician from yale who gave a nice series of talks at stanford 4-5 years ago on this -- interpreting kernels of integral operators as bitmaps, and then using graphics technology to perform it. one application: wavelet decomp for *non-periodic* pattern. we used it for image-based query byu content. worked ok -- it was installed into the qbic system. maybe we can use to make pattern games seeded by input pattern. ( take video compute wavelet transform vary the highest coeffs inverse transform project image ) cheers, xinwei |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2001-12-06 15:58:30
|
hi, >so what's your suggestion? password the tech-doc directory, and leave the docs in place ?! in fact , let's make a pre-print directory or technical report repository (which may be discontiguous dirs), with the same password ? that would make it easier to share some preliminary papers, destined for pub track. per piacere! > is anyone still interested in forming this consortium as a legal >entity though? i am. is this legally painful? xinwei ps. as for joel's work, i suggest a .eu person should email joel directly -- he doesn't answer group mail ;) i will call him -- i'd like to say hello :) pps. At 2:24 PM +0100 12/6/01, maja wrote: >Xinwei, would it be possible to take the docs offline temporarily, >but have them >back up as soon as you publish your papers? i want to keep them up for us. i also think it is really useful and important to have those docs on th tg cvs.! we agree i think, that it will be a a coherence and sense generating mechanism if tg++devs agree to filter design decisions through the step of commiting to document before building, as we honorably tried to do. (this is in fact what the computer science academic publication system already does in relation to the ecology of engineering firms, just bigger scale. part of the legitimate, enlightenment reason for academic review etc. is not to restrict the flood the knowledge so much as to foster thoughtful, reflected conversation. pace john cage ;) > > as for maintianing a history/discussion, some of >> this can be achieved >> thru the use of a versioning system it's a very elegant idea to try cvs as a way to help manage our conversation trail -- if it can be built to complement on server-side with the mail server. i'll use it if it's more transparent to me. |
|
From: Nik <ni...@xd...> - 2001-12-06 14:47:52
|
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, maja wrote: > > > as a co-author/co-editor of both these documents, i strongly > > disagree with taking these documents offline. > > i have just talked with xinwei and i do understand his problems with publishing > papers on issues that are already publicly available. i know xinwei's publishing > strategy is quite aggressive so that the papers will be published shortly. the acedmic publishign model is indeed strange, however i think its a challenge to try to work out how these 2 models can work together, rather than counter productively. suggestions xw? > Xinwei, would it be possible to take the docs offline temporarily, but have them > back up as soon as you publish your papers? or mention the docs as references (to beef up the biblio section) or just not mention them at all? > > this can be achieved > > thru the use of a versioning system > > so what's your suggestion? > more a coment than sugestion. cvs tools can show the history of a document (or should be able to) if tis text only. binaries are another problem. using xanadu as it currentlxy exits, one can show the revision hostory or transclusions across time of a pdf for example, so a 'conversation' amonsgt authors is recorded as data external to the document, rather than embedded in the documwnt itself., > > yes, documents and code can have multiple copyright holders, > > however problems > > arise when there is a challenge to the copyright, in that > > all holders must file > > suit collectively. its more a logistical problem, but can > > have legal > > repurcussions for the status of the entire document if one > > party doesnt want to > > get involved in upholding copyright violations. > > yes, but we don't have a choice - i think all documents should be copyrighted > by two organisations-authors + names of the inidvidual > artists/programmers/engineers/... while i think this is fine in principle, it makes administration easier if copyright is coagulaed into as few lumops as possible. so, for example, pix + i are quite happy to assign copyright to foam, for most of the oz code, which means foam wont have to get further authorisaiton from pix if it wants to slap someone for trying to hide oz in a dark box. in europe, the 'author rights' are enabled by inlcuding a line such as 'written by nik gaffney' in the code. author rights are not transferebale as copyright is in the US (or under the proposed implenetations of the ecd) but agian, this is a murky region for me, we might want to speak with someone who has a better ide of how it all works. > -- what about joel's work? > > > >Can a TGarden Consortium hold copyright? > > > currently there is no legal entity known as TGarden > > Consortium, > > exactly, so TGarden Consortium cannot hold the copyright, unless you say > copyright by TGarden Consortium comprised of sponge + foam++++ > > -- which doesnt make much sense. > > is anyone still interested in forming this consortium as a legal entity though? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tgarden-general mailing list > tga...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tgarden-general > |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2001-12-06 14:14:43
|
Dear TGardeners, >[04.12.2001 =B0 23:47 Uhr] Sha Xin Wei --> > > >Aside from the two *.nb tech docs, which I'd like to take off-line >>from our sourceforge cvs subito, my opinion is that the rest can stay >>up with the GNU Doc License there. > >as a co-author/co-editor of both these documents, i strongly disagree with >taking these documents offline. the tech-spec, and oz-spec make very useful >documents for trying to understand the somewhat convoluted implementation w= e >have made of this idea, as well as the possible directions the thing >could take >in alternative implementations. I thought this, too, which is why I first thought the simplest solution that preserves both publication possibilities and keeps it in ready reference for us tg++devs would be to slap a password on a superior directory and be done with it. One's browser could auto-issue one's password, yes? (MacOS has a password manager, too, for impatient folk. I don't use it, though.) >as for the invariant sections; my suggestion for not having any invariant >sections was based on the presumption that we dont know now, which parts wi= ll >stay relevant in future versions of tgarden, so basing documents for possib= le >future systems on current docs which require the inclusion of specific deta= ils >which may no longer be relevant could add to already byzantine nature of th= e >"docs". as for maintianing a history/discussion, some of this can be achiev= ed >thru the use of a versioning system (which cvs is one) which blindly stumbl= es >across teritory well elaborated upon in relation to xanadu >(bootstrap/zigzag/etc). i dont think invarient documentation lumps really d= eal >with this sedimentry subterfuge of documentation too well. Yes, these are not a good solutions. Also, we are speaking of radically different forms of writing and publication. And publication is more than from just putting files on a server + structured filesystem + indexing engines. In fact there are many orders of publication that are useful. Ex. the vast majority of books and artworks are not digital for not just techno-economic reasons (though those alone will stop the show, but also for social & phenomenological reasons. Reading Foucault or A. Connes or Rotman, or someday pubs by by our bees, one would wish and need to read and to refer to what that particular voice (discursively formed) published, not what a googled person paraphrase, and for example compare the French with the English translation, or the mathematics with the philosopher's argument about it. Also, it is crucial for a study of the evolution of ideas that we keep synoptic trace of the versioning. This is where cvs could be really powerful, if it doesn't choke or overlook or mis-type objects -- especially non-text files -- as our instance tended to do. (Ingestion is always more complicated than one hopes.) There are good discussions, or there were, among many expert groups pulled together by the Digital Library Initiative 1, for example CETH Princeton I believe. http://www.ifla.org/II/diglib.htm In the simplest case of the low-grade doc world, Stanford's DLI project, inflected by work by compuational linguists from PARC and CSLI, sprouted, among other tools, Google. Some of the most ambitious & intelligent projects I witnessed for rich structuring documents include work by Manfred Thaller, the Bergen Wittgenstein archive, and the Thomas Mann Corpus (SmallTalk), and in the non-text domain, the Alexandria GIS project. Speaking of alternate forms of indexing structures, indexing structures (metadata) were one of the Digital Libraries main foci, and this is where the bibliographic reference systems, for all their irrationalties due to historical contingency, proved to be the most useful. The print library world actually has a wonderfully powerful system for accessing enormous spans of knowledge, much more complex than online material. (Just compare Springer for math and Phaidon for art/architecture, for example.) When one's trying to write inside any literature with history, and an open community of writers and eaders, library systems really come into their own. I come not to bury the librarian but to honor her ;) I proposed at the beginning of DLI1 a "graded publication" model starting from personal creation of papers and files, then informal HEP-server ftp & email-based circulation, etc. cvs-like systems were intermediate structures atop the structured oo filesystem, very old, and as we know, very fragile, and inexpressive. One of worst conundra was the notion of selection, even using eg the notion of abtract Selection object (dynamic, late binding is a wonderful thing ;) Someone else can carry on. History matters. Two steps forward one step back, let's hope! ;) > >Can a TGarden Consortium hold copyright? > >currently there is no legal entity known as TGarden Consortium, however if >there was, it could hold copyright. So, what about a TGarden Consortium? I raised the trial balloon because it would be a cleaner solution than a mess of (c) holders, and honors the idea of project-based work by a variable cloud of bees (from an old sponge manifesto authored by lf and sxw ;) At this point in the script, we pause, snap our fingers, and shout, "Lawyer!= " Cheers, Xin Wei |
|
From: maja <ma...@f0...> - 2001-12-06 13:25:04
|
> as a co-author/co-editor of both these documents, i strongly > disagree with > taking these documents offline. i have just talked with xinwei and i do understand his problems with publishing papers on issues that are already publicly available. i know xinwei's publishing strategy is quite aggressive so that the papers will be published shortly. Xinwei, would it be possible to take the docs offline temporarily, but have them back up as soon as you publish your papers? CVS is quite useful for remote collaborations with people, and the structure of the repository now gives quite a good overview of the work process. I would like to refer to the CVS as an example of collaborative archiving in my publications, which doesn't make much sense if the documents are missing. > as for maintianing a history/discussion, some of > this can be achieved > thru the use of a versioning system so what's your suggestion? > > yes, documents and code can have multiple copyright holders, > however problems > arise when there is a challenge to the copyright, in that > all holders must file > suit collectively. its more a logistical problem, but can > have legal > repurcussions for the status of the entire document if one > party doesnt want to > get involved in upholding copyright violations. yes, but we don't have a choice - i think all documents should be copyrighted by two organisations-authors + names of the inidvidual artists/programmers/engineers/... -- what about joel's work? > >Can a TGarden Consortium hold copyright? > currently there is no legal entity known as TGarden > Consortium, exactly, so TGarden Consortium cannot hold the copyright, unless you say copyright by TGarden Consortium comprised of sponge + foam++++ -- which doesnt make much sense. is anyone still interested in forming this consortium as a legal entity though? |
|
From: n_ki <ni...@f0...> - 2001-12-06 12:48:05
|
[04.12.2001 =B0 23:47 Uhr] Sha Xin Wei --> >Dear TG folk, > >Aside from the two *.nb tech docs, which I'd like to take off-line=20 >from our sourceforge cvs subito, my opinion is that the rest can stay=20 >up with the GNU Doc License there. =20 as a co-author/co-editor of both these documents, i strongly disagree wit= h taking these documents offline. the tech-spec, and oz-spec make very usef= ul documents for trying to understand the somewhat convoluted implementation= we have made of this idea, as well as the possible directions the thing coul= d take in alternative implementations.=20 as for the invariant sections; my suggestion for not having any invariant sections was based on the presumption that we dont know now, which parts = will stay relevant in future versions of tgarden, so basing documents for poss= ible future systems on current docs which require the inclusion of specific de= tails which may no longer be relevant could add to already byzantine nature of = the "docs". as for maintianing a history/discussion, some of this can be achi= eved thru the use of a versioning system (which cvs is one) which blindly stum= bles across teritory well elaborated upon in relation to xanadu (bootstrap/zigzag/etc). i dont think invarient documentation lumps really= deal with this sedimentry subterfuge of documentation too well. >sponge is a 501 C3 nonprofit. I assume it can hold copyright. Can a si= ngle=20 >doc have two (c) holders? =20 yes, documents and code can have multiple copyright holders, however prob= lems arise when there is a challenge to the copyright, in that all holders mus= t file suit collectively. its more a logistical problem, but can have legal repurcussions for the status of the entire document if one party doesnt w= ant to get involved in upholding copyright violations. >Can a TGarden Consortium hold copyright? currently there is no legal entity known as TGarden Consortium, however = if there was, it could hold copyright. nik ][] [ http://f0.am ] [ foundation of aperiodic mesmerism [] ] ] |
|
From: Sha X. W. <xi...@mi...> - 2001-12-05 04:46:10
|
Dear TG folk, Aside from the two *.nb tech docs, which I'd like to take off-line from our sourceforge cvs subito, my opinion is that the rest can stay up with the GNU Doc License there. sponge is a 501 C3 nonprofit. I assume it can hold copyright. Can a single doc have two (c) holders? Can a TGarden Consortium hold copyright? The invariance is important, agreeing here with Stallman, for marking the positions taken by speakers in a conversation. The question is, does a document a palimpsest of conversations showing jsut the current state (or sum) of the conversation, or is it supposed to give a history? One of the values of documents in traditional (pre-digital) writing systems is that they provide a historical trace. So invariant sections are a way of doing that and yet allowing free variation in the rest of the doc. It is interesting, Stallman's distinction between "technical" parts of the document and the rest. His notion of "technical" is too programmer-centric. For example, the most technical parts of a tech doc like Ken Brakke's Surface Evolver may be the the definitions of the varifold energy functionals, which must remain invariant, since that forms part of the explanatory purpose of the program. Ditto Oz spec. Am trying to find energy and way to publish the "scientific" parts w/ help of cs colleagues here. But that needs a fair amount of more work -- both experimental as well as analytical -- and should appear in a refereed journal. ach This is why one if my top priorities is to get TG apparatus back up and installed in some lab here at GT. Slow going at the beginning, since we must work around masters project schedules and teaching demands, and I have little time to train people here. We'll do a software run ca Dec 15. I'll tell you what burned . (Speaking of that -- Thanks to Yifan for coming over to fix the cameras for Junko! ) Anyway that's why I seek grants to support and attract grad students to plant some of this work here, and carry it on. Speaking of that, there is support for a PhD or two in the CS program here from my colleague allies. Hey, y'all recommend candidates with top cs/math training as well as artistic/musical/performance/... talent who might be interested in a jazzy Ph.D. in CS here, you hear now? Or give them my coordinates, okay? Take care, Xin Wei |
|
From: n_ki <ni...@f0...> - 2001-12-04 15:05:49
|
[22.11.2001 =B0 23:01 Uhr] Anne Nigten --> >dear Maja >on behalf of V2_Lab i would like to confirm that we agree on the open=20 >source approach, especially in this project including a lot of people wi= th=20 >different backgrounds i consider it very valuable you're taking this=20 >approach to foster future development for all involved. >so YES we'll go along. hi,. im glad you all agree in principle to the opensource stuff, however thi= s also needs to followed thru with some action. this email is quite long + detai= led instrucitons on what legally has to be done for the tgarden stuff to be (= and remain) open. this is quite important, please let me know if you dont fol= low any of it, or dont agree with anything in here, and remember "i am not a lawy= er" :) CODE;: http://f0.am/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tg-code =20 the tg-code is probably the easiest place to start, and has the most straighforward model to follow.=20 each source file should have a copyright assignment and licencing conditi= ons (or pointer to a licence) for the sake of convenience, i recomend the GNU gen= eral public licence.=20 http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL which requires a preamble like so -> You may use and distribute under the terms of the GNU General Public Lic= ense. See the LICENSE file for the specific terms of the license. for people who have worked with or for foam, you can either use a joint assignment of copyright (copyleft) or assign it to foam (for ease of administration) after the GPL preamble. eg -> =20 copyright 2001 nicholas gaffney and FoAM vzw. =20 OR=20 copyright 2001 FoAM vzw.=20 =20 so EVERY file, should have as a comment, something like=20 <quote> You may use, modify and/or distribute under the terms of the GNU General = Public License. Please see the LICENSE file for the specific terms of the licens= e. copyright 2001 FoAM vzw.=20 </quote> im not sure what agreements V2 makes with its staff, but make sure the co= pyright assignment is consistent with this (so, either joint copyright, or copyri= ght V2-legal-entitiy-name). also im not sure of the legal standing of sponge,= or how they want to deal with copyright assignments. =20 DOCUMENTATION;: http://f0.am/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tg-docs =20 i would recomend the GNU Free Documentation License, as i recall, all the authors names are currently included in the documents, so copyright assig= nment is probably dealt with. please read the section re: invariant sections ve= ry carefully, as i dont think we should include any. also, xinwei had some concernes about licencing/publication of material in the public doumentat= ion and how this relates to acedemic publication. i would like to hear his concer= ns before slapping permissive licences on the tg-docs. otherwise ->=20 <quote>=20 Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this docume= nt under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no=20 Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section=20 entitled "GNU Free Documentation License </quote> USE FOR PROFIT (or perhaps FREE);: please note that while all the code/docs we have written are open/free, a= nd should not have any restriction on money making endevours, unfortunately = there are many dependencies of the codebase on otherwise restricted licences.=20 for example a part of the OSC code licenced thus -> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, wit= hout fee and without a signed licensing agreement" any derivitaive works seeking to be used for profit, should -> "Contact The Office of Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck A= venue, Suite 510, Berkeley, CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, for commercial licens= ing opportunities." or rewrite the OpenSoundControl code for networking.=20 And then there is nato (licened for use at whim), and many other miniatu= re worm cans around im sure. hope this make things clearer,=20 and gives everyone a clear idea of what they need to do. nik ][] [ http://f0.am ] [ foundation of aperiodic mesmerism [] ] ] |
|
From: Anne N. <an...@v2...> - 2001-11-22 22:06:03
|
dear Maja on behalf of V2_Lab i would like to confirm that we agree on the open source approach, especially in this project including a lot of people with different backgrounds i consider it very valuable you're taking this approach to foster future development for all involved. so YES we'll go along. how ever if other people would like to discuss issues e.g. in the field of open content or if anyone in your group has the need their contributions need to be discussed / looked at more detailed in this perspective i'm open for it. ANne At 01:52 PM 11/22/2001 +0100, maja wrote: >Dear all, > > >We need to write up an agreement between all of us regarding the usage of >results (or even just ideas) ... that were developed during the Tgarden >production in 2001. > >I would like to know from all the developers/researchers/designers >(whatever you >want to call yourselves) what do you want to be written up in this agreement - >what would you want to share/protect/agree on with the resto of us. > >Our original discussions were going in the direction of an open source >agreement, meaning: any of us can use the results of the project in any >context, >as long as we all keep the source (of the software, media, hardware, >textile...) >open to all other participants to use, and give the appropriate agreed upon >creditation to the makers. This approach has well known and less well known >problems, that can be solved if we all have our heads in the same direction. > >If you need more information about open source, you can check >http://f0.am/ipr.html where you can find a few links to places that have been >dealing with open source questions before, but also read a bit about how >we (as >foam) see the open source as applied to collaborative projects. > >Anyway... basic question is: would you go with an open-source agreement >(comments/questions/suggestions would be very much appreciated), if no, >what are >your alternative propositions. > >Thanks in advance >-maja > >ps from the subject: >IPR = intellectual property rights |
|
From: maja <ma...@f0...> - 2001-11-22 21:32:35
|
Dear all, We need to write up an agreement between all of us regarding the usage of results (or even just ideas) ... that were developed during the Tgarden production in 2001. I would like to know from all the developers/researchers/designers (whatever you want to call yourselves) what do you want to be written up in this agreement - what would you want to share/protect/agree on with the resto of us. Our original discussions were going in the direction of an open source agreement, meaning: any of us can use the results of the project in any context, as long as we all keep the source (of the software, media, hardware, textile...) open to all other participants to use, and give the appropriate agreed upon creditation to the makers. This approach has well known and less well known problems, that can be solved if we all have our heads in the same direction. If you need more information about open source, you can check http://f0.am/ipr.html where you can find a few links to places that have been dealing with open source questions before, but also read a bit about how we (as foam) see the open source as applied to collaborative projects. Anyway... basic question is: would you go with an open-source agreement (comments/questions/suggestions would be very much appreciated), if no, what are your alternative propositions. Thanks in advance -maja ps from the subject: IPR = intellectual property rights |
