[feedback20] Comments on "Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis"

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:58:50 -0000

UML is the best language to use to convey concepts. Neither the simplicity or complexity matter. UML is unambiguous. That is why it should be used. I gave this two thumbs up

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:20:56 -0000

Where can I get the slides? I need to present this subject.

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Duane Nickull

Duane Nickull — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:21:20 -0000

Gina, Anonymous:

I m truly flattered and blushing right now. O do not speak catalan/spanich so I have no idea what the last comment reads.

Aurelien:

Please understand that while it may be obvous to you, it is not to others. The concept that tags come form the ontological region (Conceptual domain) is very important to recognize. One of the main critics of folksonomies (tagging) is their lack of links to upper and mid level ontologies. I would like to invite you to contact me at duane at nickull.net to allow me to send you the chapter of the book that illustrates the concept of ontology and how important it is to Web 2.0. While it seem simplistic at first, linking a tag to a conceptual domain means that each persons element (tag) might have a differing meanging. PLease give this concept a chance. Of course, i you still think I have not clue as to wht I am talking about, I am happy to personally refund your costs of the book should you purchase it.

Tag clouds are the "View" part of the MVC equation and do not fully account for the human thinking process of how to tag something.

Duane

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:53:25 -0000

Deseo tener sus niños. Oh sí - usted presentación era muy bueno. Sexy!!!

Muchacho muchoºmucho atractivo

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:38:20 -0000

Awesome session Buying book the moment it comes out.

You ae very cute. Are you married? I saw a ring?

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Aurélien

Aurélien — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:34:11 -0000

>Why do you think the level of complexity of a diagram. UML is used for a multitude of models and diagrams. I think you over react perhaps?

Main thing about tagging is not the process or the sequence of action. The diagram is right but I don't think it can help anyone (especialy business user) to understand tagging, showing a tag cloud is much better in my opinion. Before you ask I'm an architect an knows about UML/design pattern.

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Gina

Gina — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:35:28 -0000

Duane, was a great session, pretty enough to thinking about it and buy the book if I'm intresd about it. Just one thing: smile sometimes, you got a very cute face, just to serious :)

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:15:34 -0000

Wir hatte die Session Genfunden mit kein problem. It was what we needed to show Siemens what Web 2 is all about. This should have been longer and in more detial. Too much information for a one hour session.

Also we coudl not log in to this site with our username and password. We think it is broken.

H und Fr.

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:32:37 -0000

To the first commenter:

Why do you think the level of complexity of a diagram. UML is used for a multitude of models and diagrams. I think you over react perhaps?

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Josh Devins

Josh Devins — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:53:38 -0000

Makes sense. Being one of those architects, I will be looking at the book. Thanks...

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Duane Nickull

Duane Nickull — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:23:27 -0000

BTW - the previous comment was from me (just to clear up confusion). Thought I was logged in.

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:46:00 -0000

Sorry guys. Yes - way more basic than we did in the book but given the fact only about ten people in the audience actually had architectural experience dealing with patterns, reference models and reference architectures, I had to keep it at a higher level. The insight is in the book but if you want to discuss over beers, I can show you about 9 variations of how to link FOL and upper ontologies like SUMO and DOLCE into tags. The sequence diagrams for how human thinking processes use cognitive skills, relate those to metadata constructs in their conceptual domains and results in applying a tag (in one of more than 8 binary relationship types including reflexive, co-reflexive, irreflexive, transitive, intransitive, symmetric, asymmetric, et al) probably would have confused people.

Happy to talk more about it in person. The talk did promise to parley the knowledge into a simple format to capture it.

;-)

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Josh Devins

Josh Devins — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:07:43 -0000

Waaaaay too basic. Expected a lot more insight.

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Aurélien

Aurélien — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:50:12 -0000

A sequence diagram to explain tagging? Really?

"Web 2.0 Design Patterns, Models and Analysis": commented by Brady Forrest

Brady Forrest — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:46:30 -0000

How did you find the session ? Please give us your feedback by voting and making comments.