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 keypairs relators pole while more BanalPairs the more informal relators pole.

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

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).

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

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

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 apps.

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.

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

See more basic conditions for being a bictiopedia bipole or not, at the titling guidelines page. These guidelines could be only informal recommendations for a later better filtering of platforms that follow them, or such platforms cluster be done on its own while bictiopedia not doing any difference between platforms that follow them or not.

Converting a bipole into a Triads and or elses is also valid because they all have underlying bipolarities that are very interesting to metacategorize there. A metabipolarity in a 3+ set creates a rank, by the meta being the parent of the set. A rank gets into or could be being a very useful fundamental that could more easily apply as analogies to and or as further parenting other bipoles (See Axiology below).

Also, bictiopedia would focus in suggesting you to define all possible pairings within the set (triad or else), so initially and finally the items with the lesser populated sets the better – deeper and easier. 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 such merging effort gets further magnified. We have to mind here that bipolarity keyword and this specific sintactical merging effort is very much worth doing because it better acts as a concentrating pole of the already naturally dissipative polarization trend, that every explicit expression very much does.

See other accesory sintaxis to the AdjectiveNoun main one, at the titling guidelines page

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

Higher degrees of antagonism & complementarity are the main relations to feature (among endless ones that anyone could create). Also, Banal relations between words 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 as explicited main category would do that serious work to the overall research, while if it’s not explicited could also be used as the container of what hasn’t been formally considered as highly relational.

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

Continuos merginess finds yet one more or the biggest causal loop: Observer (Sense describer) & Observed (Semantic relator). There could be endless custom semantic relators between words, and between relators themselves andbut we should mainly relate any and all relators to only some of the 5 senses. Every semantic relator we use for words is mirroring how we describe sensations with any of the 5 senses, which also can vary depending the subject or the person. I.e. Abstract-Concrete (words relators, qualifiers) 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 within the represented geometry and or linear hierarchy, so the lesser hierarchy connotationing the ranking will have. Despite that higuer 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 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:

See more about ideal sets, here. And many Documentation & Tools for these (higher complexities than ordering pairs) 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)

Categories for Perspectives ease analising keypairs in multiple ways (reductable to bipoles also: i.e. Female&Male as main bidialect), this way help in concretizing biases (subjectivities). Bias itself is a word that can be further fined up to (aprioristic) Intention (because we rely more in the past and future has to be more uncertain), and we can make analogous the differences in our (intentional) perspectives with a Teleological plurism (the last-upper possible Whys).

In the pic above, Joy (or Love) & Wisdom would be diagonals. Fine is substituted by Teleological (ideal and perfect), and Random by Bias. See below more strict explanation tied to Compatibilisms (Realisms… Theisms… that are just 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 fictions) and gamed interfaces for helping us defining more real words (keypairs…).

Defining words as if you were only a specific sense yourself 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 Principle above), for further defining Senses themselves (also yet another very complementary pole of Truth itself).

More of such maskings for perspectivizings could be added on the top of those like: biases-archetypes, other projectivities, etc, while gamification of it all along would be very much welcomed too: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 fictions) and gamed interfaces for helping us defining more real words (keypairs…). :

See also: Souls (a profiler projected app) for the worth of featuring Masking with animal and colour, and also by a sense of that animal i.e. What you Lion like smelling while hearing TrueLove (or any other bipole – more real formal content)?

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

See more information at the perspectivism page, 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.

See more accessory categories in the mockup below, specially how Proposals&Challenges (specially Acts&Habits) would integrate practices in the theoretical definitions (See more about prescriptivism below):

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

See a video (15 mins) explaining this, the Tests and Simplifications, here

See more theory about meritocracy at the FloveChain page

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

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 apps.

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 bictiopedia 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. The upper the keypair, the more abstract but simpler to mechanize… while the lower the more concrete andbut more complex to mechanize... (demo, here)

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

See a video (15 mins) explaining this, the Tests and Simplifications, and the enneagram below, here

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.

Bictiopedia 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 aggregate the bictiopedia features for you easily use them and be able to customize a data dump of different addings from you and others to finlly do a full book about it yourself (demo, here).

Mechanics for upper ranked keypairs rely more or absolutely in semantics&epistemology descriptivist crowdsourcing modelling, as explained in chapters above. More practical (lower) keypairs (and their mechanization) need more technification, as more explained in the floves and specification pages of the flove.org project (an advanced implementation of bictiopedia standards within a more prescriptivist related addons along)

As a novelty Bictiopedia is to linguistics itself, Bictiopedia ould be a Free Data Standard prototype too. Advanced case: Inline categorizing: No Robots, Add metadata & links to-within Text:

Further grammars tweaks like Logics compliances reviews, remix and randomization (ej: dadadodo) of rethorics, etc… could be thought about 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