you both mentioned concerns about the links to cities, as there is the possibility that we are moving to another place and the research could be discontinued. I think the cities we life in will be used as a reference and a place to observe our interests. it should be adaptable to other places, but we need to be careful that it doesn't become general and cheap. it should be specific for the one place.
about the text I am not sure how we can work one one piece of writing. you guys have done this at the bartlett once. how are your experiences?
I can imagine it to be some kind wikipedia or pattern language. say it to be some kind of open map like a graphical pattern language. we continue writing but interlink articles actively. each topic gets explored in an essay and this gets expanded among the keywords. references to our cities could become the links where the theoretical writings meet and interlink. say we write about adaptability and come up with examples of the real place but in the same drawing or image we might also find evidence of boundaries and this would then link to the essay about boundaries.
we need to develop a really good referencing system that then also allows us to bring the work into other forms, say a book.
let me know your inputs. the sketches are not meant to be a final proposal, just tried to visualize the discussion...
[1.0] K E Y W O R D S
.1 >
[2.0] R E F E R E N C E S
.1 >
[3.0] L A B E L S
.1 >work
3 comments:
The idea of wikipedia sounds really great. I think it can work for our organization. I have 2 concerns for such structure.
First of all, as F mentioned, we have to have very good reference system making sure we can produce the material in another format. Maybe we should think how the material being converted into a book from such structure right now as we all agreed it is the first major outcome.
Second, how are we going to divide the writings, but at the same time encourage group discussion or group writing and balance individual interest.
Due to the above, I have the following three suggestions.
1) Try to ask some computer programer about the structure of wikipedia. How can those people manage it and do the edition. We can take reference from it.
2) for the book structure, I remember F's bartlett portfolio is very wonderful balance between different issues, maybe we could modify from it. (F, if u don't mind doing something similar).
3) I understand that we should be flexible for the content and hence the structure of wikipedia is helpful. However, I think we should have some big major frame as base in order to make sure the content of the book is in a major stream of topics. I think we are sorting it out in the vision discussion. We should think preliminary how our topics being related and should focus on those are relatively highly related first as a test and basis. I think F's first diagram is very good start for the workflow. We could then further develop the structure of the research topics. After that, we could think which common research topics we are going to work together, while allow everyone has some individual space. We have to have a brief idea about the division of labour, otherwise, uneven distribution of discussions on specific topics may happen. What do you think?
I think F has a very good idea, the only thing is that the work wikipedia makes me little bit nervous for all the programing and information that is involve, I agree with J whaen he makes reference to the work at the bartlett, I also liked the type of work done there by F´s group i.e the website, were you could get lost ina a variety of info, but I also think that we should always look towards uas and take one step further, I love the entusiasm from both of you guys and I see the sketches and feel that look really interesting and something that I want to be part of. As J mentioned I will ask somebody that knoaws about programming and see if we can find some useful information. I agree with F on focusing on certain cities I know that I will be here in Bogota for a while is up to ypu guys were you want to take it, but I also loved the exploring a bility that one grows in a new city and I think that should be sahred as F did.
as far as I know is wiki available as source code and can be "quite simply" installed on a server. it is then just like a program to be used. it is all open source and there are already lots of projects online that use the same source code from wiki. there is of course a bit of installation knowledge required... but that should be only of the beginning. if it is up running we could easily use it just like wiki. did you ever look at how to write something on wiki - just flip between the taps at the very beginning of each page and it shows you the editors view where anyone can edit the content.
we do have a set of key words that we are interested and could agree to work on. I think we should have a framework to put them in a context. not only wile focusing on a output, but also to clarify relations between the topics and to ease decisions were towards the project to develop to.
I can think of something like Alexanders pattern language where he puts different topics together kind of like a lexica. maybe we have to think of a title that provides an outline. to me urban research is too broad.
if we have one we could develop all the different topics towards a common direction in order to reach a rounded output.
Post a Comment