What content types and usability how

See a video of the proposed main navigation (full, 18 mins), here. A shorter one (2 mins), here

In this page see a resumed informal list of features to be implemented as standards into softwares.

RESUME (Extended below)

1. Basic unit: (Key)pairs, at least and as the most meaningful estructure for getting deeper in-through (key)words.

2. Sintaxis: AdjectivizedNoun as main sintaxis (along other accesory ones) for keypairs being further merged.

3. Relators: Antagonist (Oxymorons, easy) & Most Complementaries (difficult) as a main (more formal) keypairs relators (pole itself of more BanalPairs, the more informal relators pole).

4. MetaRelators: 5 senses as static main relators of other relators more freely created

5. Axiology: Scales and ranks: Main set of keypairs, through free surfaces (linear, geometric, etc) more hierarchically looking (ranks) or less (scales) or none (relatives).

6. MetaCategories (Perspectivism): 2 Male-Female, 4 Teleological intentions and 5 senses as main MetaCategories along other more free categorizing of perspectivisms (ontological plurism) ones (masks, gamification, etc)

7. Epistemology : Axiom, Evidence, Prediction, and Question as main categories for keypairs stricter definitions along other accesory and more freely created ones.

8. Prescriptivism : Proposal, Challenge, Act&Habit, for closer (and so more falsifiable) categories for definitions (advanced epistemology), up to possible initial specifications of related and more interactive apps.

9. Portability: Easiliy export added content and import (parts of) the bictiopedia features to whatever other platform, through an easy to contribute global community offering of a list of differently moderated interactive platforms and data pools for that.

10. Usability: Customizable dashboards and feeds.

EXTENDED EXPLANATION

1. Basic unit: (Key)pairs, at least and as the most meaningful estructure for getting deeper in-through (key)words

Bictiopedia scope is the defining of bipoles. Single words should rather be defined, if so, by aggregating and mixing definitions from different bipoles where they are present there.

Or more straight:

Love is a default word here for you bipoling your whatever adjective else with it.
The act you could add will suggest you later a companion word pair to Love too..

See more basic conditions (informal recommendations) for what is being a bipole andor what is not, at the titling guidelines page (plus debate).

Open debate: Triads and elses…

Flove could let you create triads and elses, but we should focus (or limitate) in defining all possible pairings within the set (triad or else). The lesser populated sets the better, because brings a deeper meaning also easier to face and feature. Read more about the uselfulness of bipoles simplicity, here, and about ideal sets and bipoles scalability, here.

2. Sintaxis: AdjectivizedNoun as main sintaxis (along other accesory ones) for keypairs being further merged.

Forcing this simple double rule (AdjectivizedNoun + no space in the middle of both words) helps us a lot at very easily seeing the power of bipolarity. Bipolarity itself emphasizes in merging when compared to other way to call a set of 2, and through this sintaxis and orthographical rule, the merging effort gets further complied and magnified. Note that this settings better act as a concentrating pole of the already naturally dissipative polarization trend, that every explicit expression very much does.

See other possible accesory sintaxis to the AdjectiveNoun main one that could be implemented, linked andor synonimized at the titling guidelines page

3. Relators: Antagonist (Oxymorons) (easy to find and consensuate) & Most Complementaries (difficult to consensuate but nevermind that) as a main keypairs relators pole while more BanalPairs the more informal relators pole.

Higher degrees of antagonism & complementarities are the main relations (keypairs) to feature (among endless ones that anyone could create). Also, Banal relations between words (lesser ranked binomials, hence not keypairs) are important too because they compensate the looking for rigour of the other more formal two just mentioned, hence offering a deep research hints about complementarity (the difficult side of searching for Keypairs).

So, Banal could be explicited as a complementary main category for relators, while if it’s not explicited could also be used as the container of pairs that haven’t been formally categorized with a relator and or a rank within other pairs.

See this article about why Oxymorons and most complementaries deserve to be named as Keypairs. Here below some interactive way to create an antagonistic bipole (oxymoron) from a single word:

4. Relators relations: 5 senses as main relators of other relators more freely created

Every semantic relator we use for words is mirroring how we describe sensations with any of the 5 senses because what we observe can’t be independent of us the observers. There could be endless custom semantic relators between words, and between relators themselves, andbut we should mainly relate any and all relators to the 5 senses mainly (a friendly and minimal estructure for observation), which also can vary depending the person. I.e. Abstract-Concrete (relators) relates to Smell & View for me, to View to another person. Etc… 

5. Axiology: Scales and ranks: Main set of keypairs and or triad(s), through free surfaces (linear, geometric, etc) more hierarchically looking (ranks) or less (scales) or none (relatives).

As more fundamental (higher ranked) a set of keywords is, more complementarity each item has with each other (relativity is more emphasized), so the more they could exchange their position andor rank within the represented geometry andor linear hierarchy, the lesser static positioning and hierarchy connotation the ranking will have. Despite that higher relativity that apparently makes hierarchying less important, it is probably when hierarchying is more important to do.

Ideal hierarchical ordering (ranking) of keywords is as similar and important (if not more) as to find ideal mates for words, just because the first appearing ones will be influencing the further ones more obviously than the (an)other way round.

Same as link is core of nodes, analogy is core of links between themselves. But not all analogies have the same descriptive quality, that is why ranks help us a lots in this exclusivizing issue:

See a short video (10 mins) explaining a bit more deeply the importance of the hierarchical relationing within analogies (how to fine-tune through ranking), here.

Keypairs ranks are very useful because their main definitions (i.e. Axiom) could more easily cross-apply to any other lower keypair you want to define:

Read and see more about ideal sets, here (formally buzzworded as «Small worlds»), and many more Documentation & Tools at the Conceptual Structures & Formal Concept Analysis communities.

6. Perspectivism: 2 Male-Female, 4 Teleological intentions and 5 senses as main categories and other free categories (masks, gamification, etc)

(Meta)Categories for Perspectives ease analising keypairs in multiple ways (reductable to bipoles also: i.e. Female&Male dimorphism as main bidialectal perspectivism), this way helping in expanding subjectivities (concretizing biases).

Bias itself is a word that can be further fined (synonimzed…) up to (aprioristic) Intention (which better includes uncertainity). Also, we can pole (make analogous) the differences in our intentional perspectives with a Teleological plurism (the last-upper possible definitions).

In the pic above, Joy & Wisdom would be diagonals. The teleological Fine tunning could be synonimized with Ideal and Perfect but better with Lovely, hence aggregating all items defined with that perspective into a Lovelies aggregator. A lovely perspectivation can be more lovely than any (key)pair that contains the word Lovely but is not perspectivized as Lovely.

Random and Lucky can be synonimized with Abandoned and Experimental. See below more strict explanation tied to Compatibilisms (Realisms… Theisms… the Whats of their more deep underlying Teleological Whys):

Also, more informally complementary to those two main categories of perspectivizing, fictional grounds allow us to have a more relaxed space for pre-testing for filtering (accept&ignore) what would be more risky to directly implement in more concrete realities, hence the justification for Masks (projective fictional Perspectives-MetaCategories) and gamed interfaces for helping us defining more real (key)pairs.

Within these additional perspectives, using a specific sense as a Mask is a very useful (if not best) fictional projectivity, which by the way adds a very interesting complement to the Senses as Relators of relators (See above), finally enabling us to further defining Senses themselves.

More of such maskings for perspectivizings could be added on the top of those like: archetypes, other known projectivities, etc, while gamification of it all along would be very much welcomed too:

See also: Souls (a profiler projected app) for the worth of featuring Masking with Animal and Colour projectivities, and also through a sense of that animal i.e. What is your Lion smelling about TrueLove (or any other pair)?

See here below a possible output navigation of it: At Multimedia: Sensorial

See more information about perspectivism, here

7. Epistemology: Axiom, Evidence, Prediction, Proposal and Challenge as main categories for stricter keypairs definitions along other accesory (ranked) and or freely created ones.

This is a simplificated set of epistemologic (definers: Evidence, axiom and challenge) and Prescriptivists (Proposal and Challenge)

Below a more expanded one:

Questions and replies are one of the most custom, dynamic and easy way to define anything for any kind of audience.

Tests&Surveys (related to a keypair) could get closer to be spinoff apps on their own themselves thanks to the peers adding content to. They, as an edge of bictiopedia itself, could be very obviously either used for developing:

1. Personal: SelfHelp

2. Local: Matching with others

3. Social: Welfare standards

This is an advanced possible setting for getting to use Bictiopedia (initially or as one more option) by just filling a (highy customizable) survey:

See viewer projected app for the simpler playing with tests about keywords ranks. See crowdtests for the more ambituos side of developing it.

All apps are somewhat advanced ordered tests that the builder has prepared for its users based in a premade set of values.

8. Prescriptivism: Acts&Habits, Tests (& customizable surveys as packs of tests) for closer (and so more falsifiable) definitions up to posible initial specifications of related and more interactive app

Practice (deontology) is not separed from theory (ontology, epistemology). Practices are rather the he more advanced way to define something (advanced epistemology that further facilitates falsifiability), is through the proposing of specific practices that would endorse for what is being tried to be defined.

See here Keypairs as exportable categories and with facilitated funding to actions categorized with them:

1/7 Processual enneatypes Oracle to recommend rewarded tasks (randomly on the top of it if you want):

See more theory about meritocracy at the FloveChain page

9. Portability: Easiliy export added content and import the bictiopedia features to whatever other platform, through an easy to contribute global community offering a list of differently moderated interactive platforms and data pools.

Flove.org is not going to be an interactive global website for defining keypairs there (as wikipedia is). Instead it should be a degreed directory of standards, softwares and services that implement its standardized features. This way anyone could more easily use them and so be able to move your contents across platforms, for thereafter being able to customize a data dump of different addings from you and others you may want to , for finally getting a full book about that (a manual demo, here).

Some or most of the times, it is easier to describe something through a rant and then categorize pieces of it than doing that through more structured fields. So, we could be having a WYSIWYG like tool for inline categorizing applied to the Flove standard categories for definitions. Pic below only display the No Robots, Add metadata & links to-within Text:

http://flove.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/effectedcause-1-90×300-1.png

Further grammars tweaks like Logics compliances reviews, remix and randomization (ej: dadadodo) of rethorics, etc… could also be implemented on the top of this all.

10. Usability: Customizable dashboards and feeds.

Flove there would stand for the Bictiopedia featuring… at flove.org…

Custom (and or random..) few but many different types of content:

Radically symbolic:

Simply sourcy:

Hacks:

  1. Every added field to Sciences list could activate features in the form itself that relate to its field (i.e. Add «game theory» as selectable category for your theorizing and that activates the «Game it» option in the form, activating «Law» category enables timestamp, etc).
  2. Number there would be a field that implements some model for number definition (i.e. minimaths.net) along the bictiopedia model for words