The scheduled topic was Socratic Authoring, and with the discussion about what to demo yesterday, we wondered about what such a scope would mean for writing/editing. Robert Cunningham reported that HyPerform offers such capabilities, we should look into it. Also, the HyperScope project has produced a converter from Augment files to XML. As writing editors is always more difficult, we pondered on ViewSpecs first. In Doug’s system, views seem to be specifiable dynamically with the help of several standardized statements (as encountered in links), that can be extended by macros and meta compilers, but still mostly text-oriented. Today, it could well be that we want to support an unlimited multitude of ways to render/visualize data, so we might need some mechanisms to apply layered rendering processors that act on the semantically annotated data. ViewSpecs themselves could be published as separate data points, with some federation going on, be it CSS font-family-style priorization or HTTP-style ViewSpec negotiation, local preferences or recommendations by the author or for a specific environment. We probably have to abandon WYSIWYG entirely, as there’s no way to anticipate in advance how all the ViewSpecs out there will react on semantic markup, we might want to deliberately break this expectation by separating viewing and editing, which then won’t be a very “integrated” experience in comparison to the less visual NLS/Augment.
Another theme was the question about non-retrievable things, which are of course addressable, and there needs to be support for that. On the other hand, we can’t work with non-retrievable material, apply a ViewSpec on it or manipulate it directly, while on the other hand, clients/agents can provide quite some mechanisms to deal with such resources that aren’t accessible.