Skip to content →

Category: zettel

scraps of paper

Tracking Voices: Attack, Sustain, Decay

Radar read out

In trying to understand something like “Track,” I find that as a new angle is uncovered I need to make note of it before it slips back into the aether. Part of understanding is explaining something to yourself, and then trying to explain it to someone else. It’s turning a shard of a mental image into a story. Understanding the signal-to-noise ratio in that transmission is one measure of success. Sometimes a transmission can carry the payload of a dense and ambiguous metaphor— something that is neither signal nor noise.

Noise is something we can’t or don’t want to understand. Signal is communication for which we already have a framework for understanding. Ambiguity is a different kind of payload in a signal. Sometimes it’s important to drive toward clarity, other times it’s important to let something remain in an ambiguous state and allow for the meaning of play and play of meaning to unfold. The usefulness of track is something largely undiscovered. The tools we use to track the idea of Track are both primitive and highly sophisticated. We talk to each other; we listen; and then we talk to each other some more.

Measuring the decay of sound

The small piece of the picture that came into focus for me today was the distinction between “who” and “what.” Distinguishing “track” and “search” seems to have some conceptual value. Search is more associated with what; track is more associated with who. Either can be used for the purposes of the other, but there’s some value in making this distinction.

There’s a sense in which track can be used to understand the current presence status of a person on the Network. We use a status indicator on IM to indicate to our personal network of reciprocal connections our level of availability. Tracking a person or a topic keyword tells you who is currently speaking on the Network. Who, not what. Speaking, through microblogging (tweeting), is a form of indicating your presence and availability.

An essential component of track is its basis in the real-time stream. One way we make conversation is through making sounds– and sounds have a physics. Finding the presence of speakers must occur within the context of the sound envelopetrack must do its work in the period starting at the end of the sustain and finishing at the end of the decay.

The decrease in amplitude when a vibrating force has been removed is called decay. The actual time it takes for a sound to diminish to silence is the decay time. How gradual this sound decays is its rate of decay.

Once the sound envelope has completed its decay, the presence of the speaker can no longer be assured.

A directed social graph, or affinity group, can be followed to understand current presence status. Track can also be used for that purpose, and additionally to discover new speakers on the subject of one’s affinity. Condensing value out of that stream returns us to the beginning. A story emerges, a melody emerges– from the attack, sustain and decay– of the voices in the stream. A thousand flowers bloom in an eternal golden braid.

Comments closed

Relying Party: Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

The recent Internet Identity Workshop ended on a high note with many of the participants saying it was one of the best identity events in years. While there many moments of discovery, I had a vaguely uncomfortable feeling about the discussion. In that respect, my feeling was not in sync with the general mood.

I had the opportunity to chat with Kevin Marks, David Recordon and Steve Gillmor about the state of the “Open Stack” and the overall roadmap for OpenID. You can view the conversation on TechCrunchIT. Kevin does a great job of advocating for the Agile / Extreme Programming approach to engineering an open standards approach to “identity.” His approach advocates building the smallest useful piece in an open standard that can inter-operate with the other parts of the open stack. Kevin uses the elegant phrase: “the pieces become composable.” A software engineering project can use the parts that make sense for the task at hand.

While building the “smallest useful piece” allows one to focus on a “do-able task” within the large primordial soup of identity, it does need to unfold within a general roadmap to really be considered “useful.” Recordon offered the observation that no company wants to reveal its product roadmaps. I imagine steps that don’t betray direction.

Becoming an OpenID provider doesn’t really change the status quo. It gives millions of users an OpenID, but not many of them know what that means. Smaller websites becoming relying parties doesn’t change the balance of power. Is the destination a world wide web where I can use my Microsoft credentials to log in to Google? Will we arrive at a place where any credential set can be offered up at any website for the purpose of user authentication. Many small websites are becoming relying parties, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Users rejected the idea of a single platform providing an identity model for the entire Network. Reviewing the goals and objectives of Hailstorm, it shows a strong resonance with today’s Identity community.

“HailStorm” is designed to place individuals at the center of their computing experience and take control over the technology in their lives and better protect the privacy of their personal information. “HailStorm” services will allow unprecedented collaboration and integration between the users’ devices, their software and their personal data. With “HailStorm”, users will have even greater and more specific control over what people, businesses and technologies have access to their personal information.

“HailStorm” technologies help simplify the way people use technology. Instead of concentrating around a specific device, application, service or network, “HailStorm” services are oriented around people. They give users control of their own data and information, protecting personal information and requiring the consent of the individual with respect to who can access the information, what they can do with it and how long they have that permission to do so.

There’s a sense in which the Open Standards Identity Stack is trying to recreate Mark Lucovsky and Bob Muglia’s vision with composable parts. At the time, no one could parse the language coming out of Microsoft. The concepts couldn’t bridge the gap in trust, and perhaps it was the wrong architecture in which to build that vision. Perhaps Live Mesh will fair better than Hailstorm, this time Microsoft is more in tune with the ocean in which it swims and has embraced the ideas of Open Standards and composable parts within the Network.

The current Identity movement thrives on the ambiguity of the concept. There’s a lot of room to move and therefore a lot of terrain to discover. The more I think about Identity, the more the concept of Difference forces its way into the conversation. Perhaps we call it entropy, change or time; but Differance is at the core of what we call life. And even Identity has Difference hidden within its shadows. The depth of identity does not reside with the proposition A = A; but rather in the idea that A is A. “A” is the “A” that flows through the real-time stream and is utterly changed and somehow still the same.

Comments closed

Sweet Dreams

Barack Obama

…to sleep, perchance to dream…

Comments closed

The Power of Track: Top Down, Bottom Up

Pyramid with eye on the dollar bill

Any discussion of ‘Track’ seems to require a brief definition. By now we’re familiar with ‘Search,’ it’s the process of examining everything in an index to find keyword matches– and then ranking the results in the most useful order. ‘Track’ is a filter on the firehose of information generated by the microblogging space. It’s stuff that’s not in the search engine index yet, it’s what people are saying and thinking right now. The ideal time parameters around track are the rhythms of the conversation. Tracked results should reach one quickly enough to be able to respond to a question or statement without the thread of the conversation being lost. Track expands the public instant message dialogue beyond a personal directed social graph. When I track a topic, I’ll see messages from anyone who uses the words I’m tracking.

Our recent Presidential campaign featured diametrically opposed approaches to organization. One campaign employed a bottom-up strategy; the other preferred the top-down approach. This got me thinking about track and the difference between top-down and bottom-up strategies. A top-down strategy is easier to support in that the tracked keywords are very limited and they don’t change unless consciously changed. The creation of an intentional scarcity of tracked keywords also lays the foundation for an economic model.

Here are two approaches to a limited track keyword set:

A bottom-up strategy is harder to support, every user in the system could have a separate list of keyword filters for the full stream. That’s a lot of computing that needs to be done very quickly. As events unfold around us in the world, each user’s set of keywords would change to aid in the discovery around the new topics emerging. The full set of track filters would be constantly shifting and morphing.

Search uses a top-down strategy to prioritize keyword results. You probably want to see the results that most people want to see or think are important. The brilliance of the modern search engine is that it makes that calculation for everything it indexes. It arrives at top-down through bottom-up voting on importance. Services like Mahalo attempt to only provide extended results for popular searches– converging to the top of the pyramid.

Here are some examples of services trying to create lists of what’s popular:

If you track what’s popular, depending on the community providing the attention data, you quickly converge on the least interesting topics.  You’re only seeing what everybody knows.

And the broader the community, the more quickly you end up with The National Enquirer or the World Weekly News. Now that the election is over, take a look at the trending topics on Search.Twitter.com. Occasionally you’ll see a micro-community poke through with a hashtag for a particular conference or event, but mostly there’s little of interest.

New York Public Library Reading Room

Each of us is a unique nexus of connections tracing our path through the world. Our individual curiosity provides the fuel, the focus, the set of keywords we carry with us to make sense of, and create, the future. The difference between all of us having the power to track the stream and only the most popular keywords being tracked is the difference between all the books in the world and the magazines available at an airport bookstore. For a short period of time we all had track, now track is the privilege of the few.

For some reason, I’m reminded of a song by Laurie Anderson for tape-bow violin based on a quote by Lenin:

Comments closed