Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of “emergency” is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.
My main focus was working on the sample implementation for SRFI-167 and SRFI-168 along the continued work on a real implementation on top of WiredTiger using (Chez Akku) Arew Scheme. I managed to get together a release dubbed 0.1.1, that you can try using the following command:
The standardization process is kicking and more people got involved by sharing wishes, bug reports and in general valuable positive and negative feedbacks. My talk on this subject to Scheme Workshop was accepted. I would have liked write and submit a full paper about it, I mostly failed. I started writing a tutorial (book?) about the Ordered Key-Value Store that is called Around Multi-Model Database.
I drew a plan in the sand of github about datae.
Also, schemedoc launched Awesome Scheme.
I got involved in some W3C mailling list related to RDF and AI.
At last, I got some energy to read things and listen to Noam Chomsky.
I found especially interesting the text entitled: Design Principles Behind Smalltalk.
Here is a first quote about their "scientifical" approach to design systems:
Our work has followed a two- to four-year cycle that can be seen to parallel the scientific method:
Build an application program within the current system (make an observation)
Based on that experience, redesign the language (formulate a theory)
Build a new system based on the new design (make a prediction that can be tested)
The Smalltalk-80 system marks our fifth time through this cycle.
Here is another about the relation between tools, individual accomplishments and how to achieve them:
I'll start with a principle that is more social than technical and that is largely responsible for the particular bias of the Smalltalk project:
Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual.
The point here is that the human potential manifests itself in individuals. To realize this potential, we must provide a medium that can be mastered by a single individual. Any barrier that exists between the user and some part of the system will eventually be a barrier to creative expression. Any part of the system that cannot be changed or that is not sufficiently general is a likely source of impediment. If one part of the system works differently from all the rest, that part will require additional effort to control. Such an added burden may detract from the final result and will inhibit future endeavors in that area. We can thus infer a general principle of design:
Good Design: A system should be built with a minimum set of unchangeable parts; those parts should be as general as possible; and all parts of the system should be held in a uniform framework.
Seems like the spirit of Scheme or worrydream.com.
I also liked the lisp os text. Here is the part that echoed the most with my work:
Object store based on tags
Instead of a hierarchical file system, we propose an object store which can contain any objects. If a file (i.e. a sequence of bytes) is desired, it would be stored as an array of bytes.
Instead of organizing the objects into a hierarchy, objects in the store can optionally be associated with an arbitrary number of tags. These tags are key/value pairs, such as for example the date of creation of the archive entry, the creator (a user) of the archive entry, and the access permissions for the entry. Notice that tags are not properties of the objects themselves, but only of the archive entry that allows an object to be accessed. Some tags might be derived from the contents of the object being stored such as the sender or the date of an email message. It should be possible to accomplish most searches of the store without accessing the objects themselves, but only the tags. Occasionally, contents must be accessed such as when a raw search of the contents of a text is wanted.
It is sometimes desirable to group related objects together as with directories of current operating systems. Should a user want such a group, it would simply be another object (say instances of the class directory) in the store. Users who can not adapt to a non-hierarchical organization can even store such directories as one of the objects inside another directory.
While the idea of building a Scheme operating system is beautiful. I don't have enough time for it. Much inspiration can be taken from existing projects like GNU Guix, Mezzano or Unikernels...
Another interesting read is: Accelerating Science: A Computing Research Agenda:
Accelerating Science: The Value Proposition
Cognitive tools for acclerating science could lead to dramatic increases in scientific productivity by increasing efficiency of the key steps in scientific process, and in the quality of science that is carried out (by reducing error, enhancing reproducibility), allow scientific treatment of topics that were previously impossible to address, and enable new modes of discovery that leverage large amounts of data, knowledge, and automated inference.
... and allow effective learning.
The sample implementation for SRFI-167 in particular needs more love. It happens that I need it, for some future projects. Among others I use it in emacs-like editor and I might rely on it in the functional package manager. I have still things to figure. It seems like I am trying to shoehorn it, especially in the case of the functional package manager. In the case of the editor, it is less likely to be a mistake because indeed it is helpful and implements separation of concerns like Model-View-Controler. Having the same data-structure everywhere is helpful and it is more powerful than a hash-table or struct as it allow to easily do introspection to ease debugging.
While I was excited by datae as a demonstration of change-request mechanic over structured data that is bigger than memory. I was thinking that it might lead to making a living out-of-it with grants, community support or consulting. Getting together that software with 100% support of SPARQL is not impossible. The question is do I really want to invest my time in this particular project? At some point, "maybe" is not anymore an acceptable answer. In the meantime, I will just put it on "standby" mode.
I am discussing a possible relicencing of Arew into something dubbed business-friendly most likely Apache 2.0. This will lead to a split of the project into two components. The first will remain in Arew and will be dedicated to R7RS support and moar. The second repository will be prolly called babelia and will be licensed in a fork of the Affero GPL licence that is more humane, more sensible to the challenges faced by the anthorposcene.
I got a better idea about my Personal Knowledge Base project or if you prefer my Personal Assistant or Research Assistant. To quote Ronald J. Brachman:
Can we have realistically useful Knowledge Base that is designed in the absence of specific intended applications?
Otherwise said, I need an application of the application (!) to be able to dogfood the idea. I think studying Artificial Intelligence and its history is a good subject of study, in particular I need to learn more about non-monotoic logic and ordinal number systems.