User talk:Yaron Koren

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: require_once(/home/ngrandy/public_html/includes/Init.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ngrandy/public_html/w/includes/WebStart.php on line 94

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/home/ngrandy/public_html/includes/Init.php' (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/ngrandy/public_html/w/includes/WebStart.php on line 94

Your homepage is 404? *grin*

I'm about to register.

ben (by way of intro please see "Participatory Deliberation")

My homepage is back up, thankfully. Welcome to the site; your experience with semantic mapping of argumentation could prove quite helpful. Yaron Koren 08:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

question on the free text field[edit | edit source]

Does the field for free text allow for autocomplete? That is on both, applying tags or just general data?

No, neither. Yaron Koren 21:27, April 7, 2009 (UTC)

editorial boards as authors[edit | edit source]

Where an author is a newspaper's editorial board, it's obvious to human readers that it has a very close relation with the source which is the newspaper itself. But there's no way to express this on DDB at present. Might there be? Dsp13 20:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your very valuable contributions up till now. Yes, I think that's a good idea. There are two ways to do it: either make it a relation for sources ("Has editorial board") or authors ("Is editorial board of"). Having it for sources might be easier, since it could be made a standard part of the source template; most sources will have one. What do you think? Yaron Koren 13:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Not sure - I don't have a clear enough sense about how DDB works to judge! On the one hand, as you say, most sources have editorial boards, so it wouldn't seem a redundant part there; on the other hand, it would be nice if the relation to the source appeared on an author page when the author was an editorial board. (Of course, the source will be repeated in the list of items below, so a human user could always click on it that way.)

I've been concentrating btw on providing pages for sources & authors who have articles about them on Wikipedia. My motivation was thinking of the Wikipedia pages as a sort of authority file, a la [1]. The Wikipedia links for sources and authors seem slightly different in kind, more exact in their correspondence, to those for topics (where they need not be one-to-one, since Wikipedia sometimes divides up topics differently). Dsp13 16:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I think I agree - putting the relation in the author page is the right way to go, in that it declares an author to be an editorial board at the same time that it makes the connection. I'll try to create a template for that declaration soon.
The Wikipedia-linking and defining work you're doing is great. I never really thought of the Wikipedia links as providing semantic information in themselves, but of course they do; it's the ultimate (at the moment) disambiguation resource. Yaron Koren 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

redirects?[edit | edit source]

we have both 'Aaron Friedberg' and 'Aaron L. Friedberg' entered in items as authors at the moment. If this was just a wiki, I might add a redirect from one author page to the other, but would this confuse the database side? Dsp13 04:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Good catch. Yeah, the database ignores redirects; all wording has to be exact (that's one of the complaints people have about semantic wikis). I'll fix the errors. Yaron Koren 06:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

interesting book series[edit | edit source]

Thought you might be interested in [2] which seems to reprint paired contrasting opinion pieces on various topicsDsp13 06:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's a surprisingly large amount of information on a relatively obscure book series (I think I was vagely aware of that series before). That is quite interesting, thanks. I already got one new opinion item out of it. :) It's always interesting to see other people's approaches to the semantics of opinion. Yaron Koren 08:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Deletion?[edit | edit source]

Why was Gendercide deleted? Badon (talk) 15:46, February 28, 2012 (EST)

It didn't relate to any specific political issues in the wiki. Yaron Koren (talk) 15:48, February 28, 2012 (EST)
It was my first time posting something here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I thought it was insightful about the motivation behind the ongoing American wars in the Middle East. I noticed there's quite a lot here about the wars, so I thought it would fit in. Does it not fit in for some other reason I haven't thought of? Badon (talk) 01:16, March 4, 2012 (EST)