MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

A WebWeb is the natural generalization of a WebRing, where each pair of nodes is connected by a chain of ReciprocalLinks, so that the whole graph can be arbitrarily traversed by links. In this way each node can be reached from each other.

-- FridemarPache


This page needs refactoring because:

A dedicated Wikiforum could easily take the rĂ´le of a synchronization mechanism, where the recent changes and intentions of the repective Website-owners could drive the evolution of such structures. Each Website-owner could organize their contributions as a (privately writable) WikiForum (on a WikiFarm). -- fp

Could you elaborate some more? Is the term WebWeb used anywhere else? In what aspect is the WebWeb different from a highly connected graph, ie. is bidirectionality a requirement? I didn't understand the second paragraph at all -- who is driving changes, who has intentions, what effects does that have, who owns the sites and who owns the wikis, what is publically writable and what is publically readable? -- AlexSchroeder

Thank you, I'm glad that you picked up the topic, because I'm looking for WebWeb partners, who would like to build a WebWeb based community. Indeed I've put your question on my agenda to elaborate. At moment I'm in a hurry and can only give you a hint: you might want to explore the [eyeopener] for the motivation behind. -- fp

I'll wrap my head around this via analogy, as I often do. A WebRing page has links on the bottom of every page or the main entry page, one to the "next page", one to the "previous page" and one to the central site. The previous and next links are actually organized by the central site, and are redirects from that central site.

So a WebWeb would be much the same, except without the central site, and with more than 2 links out? This sounds familiar. There's a defacto relationship between AdvoGato, KuroShin and MeatballWiki, especially with InterWiki. So is InterWiki a special case of WebWeb? --DaveJacoby

To me, a WebRing is a special way to structure web pages: They are grouped according to a topic, they provide certain navigational aids. As a WebWeb is not a WebRing, it seems like plain Web to me. Plain web pages that link to other plain web pages with a similar topic, usually. --AlexSchroeder

I think a WebWeb is like the normal WorldWideWeb except with BidirectionalLinks (likely BackLinks). To maintain the bidirectionality, you'd have to register with either the target sites or with some central registry that maintains the relationships. -- SunirShah

OK. So, bidirectionality is cool, but then there's the central registry. This makes it not WebWeb but WebTree?. --DaveJacoby

No, the topology is more like a star

WebStar?. Hrm. That sounds like an HTML editor for a Mac. But what is a star topology but a tree with all leaf nodes? --dj

WebStar? is an HTTP server for the Mac. [1]. What is a tree with just one leaf and one trunk? (eg. A -> B). Not much "treeness" there. I'm reminded of the topology of a Token-Ring network, which isn't actually in practice laid out in a ring, but instead is laid out as a star, but the inherent electrical configuration is a ring. This is different from either of the cable ethernets which is cabled from peer to peer (but also isn't joined in a ring, unless you really want nightmares).

Oh, yes. I knew I had heard of it somewhere. I agree that the base case of a tree is a single directional link, just as the base case of so many data structures is. If you assume the hub of a star is a root, you have ... something. I think it is vaguely treelike, but not really. A shrub? --dj

No need for a central registry to achieve bidirectionality, if (in an InterWiki system) every author does produce the backlinks in the target. The clerical work could be supported by client macros or with a dedicated WikiBrowser. I'm more or less only watching this page, because I'm very short of time again. Perhaps the elaboration becomes unnecessary due to peer activity. Long live Wiki. :-) -- fp

That gives me an idea: I guess you could also track back links with HTTP referals. By the way, Fridemar, what does "if every author does produce the backlinks in the target" mean? --ss

Sunir, restricting the answer to wiki-authors, who link to external Wikipages, we can BiLink the pages; a special case would be to bilink at least WikiNodes. More generally: authors who want to bilink Web-pages, that are not writable, can use social annotation software like DiiGo, TrailFire, AmpliFy and (this is perhaps the most import software innovation..) .. ConceptMaps.

My sense of the ring quality of a WebRing is that each site refers to just one more site, with eventually the last on the list linking to the first of the list, thus closing the ring. Bidirectionality is not a required attribute (though handy). The central registry also provides more qualities -- (1) to be a member of the ring you don't need to maintain the code that is your exit link, and (2) new members of the ring can be inserted by only updating the registry. Another quality of webrings is that you don't get lost in the hypertext jungles since there is only one path to follow ... unless a site has been entered into multiple webrings ;-) Thus, the one path of the ring acts like a GuidedTour?, which a judicious RingMaster? could finesse by rearranging the ring registry --EricScheid

Each site refers to two sites. The one to the left and the one to the right, But yeah, otherwise you are correct. The self-contained nature of webrings is the attraction. I can go to so many sites and see nothing but sites about old Chevys, or needlepoint, or a specific scantily-clad model or actress, or japanimation. I think there's de-facto WebWebs out there (the intertwined nature of SlashDot, FreshMeat? and SegFault? a few years back would be one example, although that's changed since then), but you tend not to have quite the tight focus. WebRings are tending to use (Next)(Next 5)(Webring Home)(Previous 5)(Previous) as their linking style, which expands the number of links to 10, instead of 2.

They do now. The original webrings were unidirectional, everything else is feature growth. btw- throw (random) into that list.

You're right. That tells you how much I deal with WebRings.

Personally, I like organic WebWebs. Sites that just sort of work together. The way that AdvoGato and MeatballWiki InterWiki easily. With an organic WebWeb, there will inevitably be topic drift. That topic drift brings with it implicit trust. That means site A linked to site B, and that was interesting, and site B linked to site C, and that was interesting, and now site C is linking elsewhere. Of course, you've gone from Linux-supported sound cards to Emperor Norton, but it's interesting. And it is how the web works. --DaveJacoby

TrailFire could at last be one realisation of a userdefined WebWeb on the fly. No central registry is necessary -- [fridemar]



MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Edit text of this page | View other revisions