Local InfoCloud and Community

by

in , ,

I have been thinking about the Local InfoCloud and its role lately. Viewing the world through the InfoCloud lenses has found some rough edges around the Local InfoCloud, initially defined by information accessible because of location or membership to a closed group. The location component makes sense, but it really also needs to include community.

I have recently read Ramesh Srinivasan‘s Village Voice: Expressing narrative through community-designed ontologies (his MIT master’s thesis). In Village Voice Ramesh uses the following definitions of community from Brian Smith (et al.):

  • Ethnic/political communities: These are communities that may have no proximity, yet have a common political identity, or ethnic background. A variety of web sites have been designed to allow these groups to come together.
  • Geographic communities: These are communities that have physical bounds. These sites aim to complement the face-to-face interaction that already occurs.
  • Virtual communities: Virtual communities are groups that come together based on a common interest that the web medium makes possible.
  • Demographic communities: A number of web-based demographic communities have emerged to serve various constituencies. Web sites that are based upon a demographic community are growing in popularity.
  • Activity-based communities: These communities are defined by a shared activity such as shopping,making music, or playing games.

This connection between Local InfoCloud and communities is one that seems paired in the following manner as it pertains to the InfoClouds. The Global InfoCloud is all the information available to everybody, if one can find it. The Local InfoCloud is that information that is protected by a firewall, membership, or by interest. Adding interest as means of grouping and providing social interaction, which also provides organizational understanding (such as vocabulary, common ideas, and cultural understanding). The distinct social implications of information, whether it is by discipline, work, or other community have similar traits that are different from the Global InfoCloud and the Personal InfoCloud and it stands between the two in the middle ground.

Location is still important to this InfoCloud as our proximity to information and information reuse in the context of location is important. The context of location drives need, but so does social context that comes from community, in relatively similar ways.

Does it make sense to keep the name Local InfoCloud, or would Community InfoCloud be more appropriate? If there is a change, does it make sense to go back and change all the preceding documents or just deal from this point forward.



4 responses to “Local InfoCloud and Community”

  1. jackvinson@jackvinson.com Avatar

    Or do the terms “global” and “local” no longer work? If I consider my own information cloud, there is stuff I have, stuff my communities and networks and company have, and then stuff that is freely available. Is this private, closed, open? But then I may be thinking about the info cloud differently than how you define it.

    Even the idea of the local info cloud changes as I change my connectivity to the total info cloud. From my workplace my info cloud is different than it is from a cafe or from home. (Though this is changing as we figure out how to verify identities from multiple locations.)

  2. thomas@vanderwal.net Avatar

    Jack –

    In your first paragraph you are thinking of information you already have access to and have found, hence it is in you Personal InfoCloud.

    Context drives what we desire moved toward us in our Personal InfoCloud. Localized information most often should not be tied just to location, but that is one of the problems with how systems were designed and built. People are more mobile and location and environment may not drive context any longer.

    More later…

  3. chris@conversal.com Avatar

    Insofar as I understand that you are talking about the naming hierarchy of the levels of InfoClouds, I think it better to go with Community InfoCloud as opposed to local. It may be helpful to look at this from a simple structural standpoint as I have been doing with Insytes. There are people, people belong to many different groups. There are groups and there are groups of groups. From this perspective then, I see your types of InfoClouds as:

    Personal InfoClound – all of the information a person has access to from all their varied Community InfoClouds both public and private to which they have access

    Community InfoCloud – all of the information contained in a community, which may also belong to other groups (ie citing a similar work)

    Open InfoCloud – all of the publicly available information that encompasses all of the public Community InfoClouds and Personal InfoClouds

    Global InfoCloud – all of the information available in the Open InfoCloud and from within the gated Community infoClouds.

    I see where Jack is going in regards to the “Local” version perhaps referencing the immediate instance of his Personal InfoCloud as it is are available to him in different instances through different devices – dont you have another term you use for this instace/device view of an individual’s Personal InfoCloud?

    Now of course, this is just my independet view, and being not well versed in all of your thoughts on this yet, forgive if me if I am revisiting something from elsewhere not yet read.

  4. thomas@vanderwal.net Avatar

    Chris, there is a piece missing to all of this here, the introduction. I have two full article describing the Model of Attraction (the four InfoClouds begin here) and the Personal InfoCloud. These were to have been published more than six months ago, but the publication has been working through volunteer staffing issues and they have yet to be published. I am strongly thinking of publishing them here or somewhere else in the month or two after WebVisions. I have been presenting and writing about (not in one central place however, which is why I created this site so to pull things together) the four InfoCloud for a little over two years (the Model of Attraction and Personal InfoCloud (a.k.a. rough cloud of information that follows us have been around over four years). The InfoClouds came out of long discussions with a few friends that I can trust to tear everything apart as well as a lot of my own doing the same. The major tenets of the different InfoClouds are access and organization.

    There are four InfoClouds, just as every internet presentation began in the 90s, there is a cloud, well four clouds:

    Global InfoCloud is the open internet, there is no central organization. Information and media is open and available, if you can find it.

    Local InfoCloud is not openly available (intially thought of as the intranet or a closed (pay or not pay) community — like AOL, etc.), but the information structure is more apparent and the vocabulary used is more understood and controlled than the in the Global InfoCloud. Location-based services fit here and communities not tied to location fall into this category as their are central tenets of understanding that help ease the finding of information. This said, the information may not be accessible all of the time.

    External InfoCloud is a closed environment the person does not know about or does not have access to. In closed enterprise environments (CIA, etc.) the person sitting near you may have the answer you need for your work or play, but you do not have access to that information. Paid content sites provide similar problems.

    Lastly, the Personal InfoCloud is all of the information the person has found or created and has access to. The person has attracted the information to the device and they want to retain that information. They have their own organization system (possibly). The idea is given environment, location, and/or context the information will be available as needed or wanted. The information we have already found has a greater ease of findability in the Personal InfoCloud and that information travels with us or is moved closer to us by our smart devices and smart systems.

    The Local InfoCloud has community components and there are distinct facets of various community types. The location still plays a part in some of the aspects (access and organization). Access is to some degree tied to location (less so than when I started laying this out over two years ago) and where organization is not tied to location (tagging physical space and other modes of embodiment of information in the environment that are becoming more common (still in the realm of outliers)) are tied to community, which provides the organization layers through common language/vocabulary and learned patterns of structure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *