[om-list] What I feel from your writings

[Luke A. Call]

A note to anyone on the list.  This thread is using a style of internet
conversation that quotes earlier parts of the thread (starting each
quoted line with a ">", in some email clients represented as a colored
vertical bar, to provide context for comments, where the depth or number
of >s or bars indicates the levels of quoting.  It makes it
easier to clearly reply to a specific part of the message.  For some
people and topics it is easier to follow the conversation that way,
rather than having to scroll down through the history to see what a
person is referring to (which is known as top-posting, as I'm doing in
this paragraph).  A person can get used to either one; top-posting might
be most useful in an MS-centric environment where Outlook doesn't
properly support this longtime quoting standard by default (last I knew,
it can with an optional setting), or in threads where a
reader has less need for context to know what someone is talking about.
More description is in wikipedia under "Posting style".

On 2021-05-01 20:09:37+0300, Jean Louis <bugs at gnu.support> wrote:
> * Luke A. Call:
> > On 2021-04-29 00:18:32+0300, Jean Louis <bugs at gnu.support> wrote:
> > > Readability is important. Making it work on mobile devices is
> > > important. It is easy, I will help you. I like to keep styling to
> > > minimum, but must enable it for all devices. Today 50% of people read
> > > with mobile devices.
> > But what do you think about it being set better at the browser
> > level?
> I think I know the concept you are referring to. Do you mean that each
> browser can have its own style sheet and thus make it nicer or more
> readable?
> Here is good tip, add this to your HTML:
>   <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
> ....

Thanks for that & related info. I will make a note to try that sometime 
later, and will try to let you know when I do.
 
> The default style sheets in many browsers is not really readable.
> 
> I suggest you see this page:
> ....

Thanks for that suggestion also and the CSS.  (I probably won't use a
site with such a distasteful name, though.)

I added some CSS earlier to my OM
based on someone else's suggestion but haven't formed strong opinions
about it nor become well informed about CSS.  But hopefully will try
yours later.  What browser(s) do you use, if you don't mind?
 
> > > > Also at that site you hopefully can find where I describe the what/why
> > > > of how OM's internals are structured (using postgres, but I would
> > > > like to move to sqlite later; health slows me much, currently).
> > > That would disable possible collaboration. It is antifeature.
> > I think if you read more on the site [http://onemodel.org] you'd understand better how things
> > are intended to work.  The database layer is not where the sharing of
> > knowledge should happen, rather the DB is only where the decomposed
> > knowledge is stored.  PG dissuades many users due to having to manage
> > their own install, upgrades, config etc.

> I wish I could understand that. I mentioned PostgreSQL rather in the
> context of being multi user and thus multiple users could be building
> knowledge together while using software as a client.
> It also allowed access to private databases on public servers or
> private servers over the VPN. It means you can manage the knowledge on
> distance without storing it on each device locally.

Yes, the sharing feature as planned would allow what you describe, but
implemented at a higher level of the software stack.
 
> > > > I want to reduce knowledge to something like an atomic level, where
> > > > words are a superstructure only, with the words etc being
> > > > changeable, even if the knowledge itself does not change.
> > > 
> > > That would become universal language probably planetary
> > > understandable. Problem is in how to express such knowledge as it
> > > sounds like recursive loop. If that type of knowledge is base and word
> > > is superstructure like on higher level, how and in which form would
> > > knowledge be described...
> > I think again, if you read more on my http://onemodel.org site, it
> > explains more.  Pls do. :)
> I do, and did read. Not that I understood everything, that may ned
> more time. How I understood it, you are making relations. Concept is
> similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_triple and also
> mentioned here by Karl Voit: https://karl-voit.at/2020/05/19/RelFS/

When you have read thoroughly those parts of the site, if it is not more
clear, let me know.
 
> I have one good idea how to make PostgreSQL foundation for any kind of
> relations in the sense of Semantic triplet.

I think it is unduly limiting to depend on a particular database for the
sharing features.  The concepts (again...at the site) are more
important.

Best,
--
Luke Call
1) I find this inspiring and helpful (video/audio/written, many languages, 2x/year)
   General Conference: messages from prophets like Noah, but current.
   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference
2) Pls consider: are info sources accurate and reliable?  How do we know that?
3) I got vaccinated and wear a mask in public because I care about human lives. 
Happy to discuss, or: http://lukecall.net - Tech,many thots.(Updated 2021-04-03. Cmts/sugg welcome. https later.)