TCMpedia - Start Adding Your Info! -- into a straightjacket?

[Guest guest]

Congratulations on a beginning!

 

It looks like table of contents to a basic primer of TCM.

 

Can one add to the outline / table of contents? Or create branched

off trees of topics (hierarchical lists -- like the main index that's

there now)?

 

If everything added has to be shoehorned into the given index, that's

a huge, premptive bias against alternative perspectives of CM, the

ones already known, or the development of new organizational perspectives.

 

For instance(s):

 

Channel theory integrating the various (otheriwise familiar) channel

systems into an energetic framework not found in TCM (but arguably

closer to Han classic meanings),

e.g. Jeffery Yuan wei-ying-yuan energetic layers (and framework for

understanding all the channel systems)

e.g. John Shen's 4 systems approach.,

etc.

 

TuiNa -- a modern funneling of traditional bodywork? In Han times it

was AnQiao. In modern street Chinese, AnMo. Is this category just for

modern orthodox " TuiNa " ?

 

QiGong -- a modern word, more or less equivalent, etymologically and

in usage, to " aerobics " . What about daoyin (one of the mss in the

MaWangDui find, written early 2nd century BC, and an oft used term

across the two millenia since), or yangxian, shengong, forms of

Daoist (medical) internal alchemy, or a list of other terms that have

substantial histories. All this goes under " TuiNa " ?

 

If the wiki is rigidly rooted in this index, it's DOA, except for

students (coerced into TCM taxonomy, at least through licensing exam)

and those who know nothing outside of that experience and taxonomy.

 

Not to be too negative, but seriously, there's got to be free-form

structural possibilities.

 

Comparing to Wikipedia -- a handful of categories (in computerdom,

traditionally optimally 4-7 items), one of which would likely be some

name for modern CCP/PRC orthodox TCM. Possibly also other (related)

traditional Asian systems (other CM perspectives, Japanese, Korean, ...);

 

I don't have the time tonight to work out fully such a taxonomy, but

do believe thinking (together, discussion-wise, over a period of

time) in this direction it needed to give this thing a life of its own.

 

What, for instance, taxonomies were used for compendiums of CM or

various parts of it, across the 2000+ year history of documents? Why

not some entries like the titles of chapters in the SuWen or

ZhenJing, NanJing, etc.

 

Perhaps more flexibility is possible in that, granted initial, framework.

 

Anybody else get what I'm trying to point to?

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release 12/26/2006

12:23 PM

[Guest guest]

Chris,

 

I think you raise some interesting points of discussion. I agree that

we need to work this out, sooner rather than later as it will affect

info added. I can't say i'm the one to work it out, gotta December's

issue of CMT to get out in the next few days. As you raise most of

the points and have already thought this out, i think you're in an

excellent position to head the solution and sought it out. Get in

touch with David Botton and see what can be done.

 

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Chinese Medicine ,

< wrote:

>

> Congratulations on a beginning!

>

> It looks like table of contents to a basic primer of TCM.

>

> Can one add to the outline / table of contents? Or create branched

> off trees of topics (hierarchical lists -- like the main index

that's

> there now)?

>

> If everything added has to be shoehorned into the given index,

that's

> a huge, premptive bias against alternative perspectives of CM, the

> ones already known, or the development of new organizational

perspectives.

>

> For instance(s):

>

> Channel theory integrating the various (otheriwise familiar)

channel

> systems into an energetic framework not found in TCM (but arguably

> closer to Han classic meanings),

> e.g. Jeffery Yuan wei-ying-yuan energetic layers (and framework for

> understanding all the channel systems)

> e.g. John Shen's 4 systems approach.,

> etc.

>

> TuiNa -- a modern funneling of traditional bodywork? In Han times

it

> was AnQiao. In modern street Chinese, AnMo. Is this category just

for

> modern orthodox " TuiNa " ?

>

> QiGong -- a modern word, more or less equivalent, etymologically

and

> in usage, to " aerobics " . What about daoyin (one of the mss in the

> MaWangDui find, written early 2nd century BC, and an oft used term

> across the two millenia since), or yangxian, shengong, forms of

> Daoist (medical) internal alchemy, or a list of other terms that

have

> substantial histories. All this goes under " TuiNa " ?

>

> If the wiki is rigidly rooted in this index, it's DOA, except for

> students (coerced into TCM taxonomy, at least through licensing

exam)

> and those who know nothing outside of that experience and taxonomy.

>

> Not to be too negative, but seriously, there's got to be free-form

> structural possibilities.

>

> Comparing to Wikipedia -- a handful of categories (in computerdom,

> traditionally optimally 4-7 items), one of which would likely be

some

> name for modern CCP/PRC orthodox TCM. Possibly also other (related)

> traditional Asian systems (other CM perspectives, Japanese,

Korean, ...);

>

> I don't have the time tonight to work out fully such a taxonomy,

but

> do believe thinking (together, discussion-wise, over a period of

> time) in this direction it needed to give this thing a life of its

own.

>

> What, for instance, taxonomies were used for compendiums of CM or

> various parts of it, across the 2000+ year history of documents?

Why

> not some entries like the titles of chapters in the SuWen or

> ZhenJing, NanJing, etc.

>

> Perhaps more flexibility is possible in that, granted initial,

framework.

>

> Anybody else get what I'm trying to point to?

>

>

>

>

> --

>

>

> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date:

12/26/2006 12:23 PM

>

[Guest guest]

> It looks like table of contents to a basic primer of TCM.

 

To start with, but anything TCM related can be added. I have lots of primer

notes that I will

start putting up in to that TOC over the next few weeks.

 

> Can one add to the outline / table of contents? Or create branched

> off trees of topics (hierarchical lists -- like the main index that's

> there now)?

 

Absolutely! Click edit the page for ANY page, add your topic in there for

example..

 

* [[My New Topic]]

 

then save the page. Now your new topic is listed. Click on it and you can the

link to the

topic and now you will be given the option to add the new content for that page.

 

>

> If everything added has to be shoehorned into the given index, that's

> a huge, premptive bias against alternative perspectives of CM, the

> ones already known, or the development of new organizational perspectives.

 

Anything goes and can be reorganized over time as needed as well.

 

>

> For instance(s):

>

> Channel theory integrating the various (otheriwise familiar) channel

> systems into an energetic framework not found in TCM (but arguably

> closer to Han classic meanings),

> e.g. Jeffery Yuan wei-ying-yuan energetic layers (and framework for

> understanding all the channel systems)

> e.g. John Shen's 4 systems approach.,

> etc.

 

There is no reason not to add them and I would encourage any one to do so.

 

 

 

>

> TuiNa -- a modern funneling of traditional bodywork? In Han times it

> was AnQiao. In modern street Chinese, AnMo. Is this category just for

> modern orthodox " TuiNa " ?

 

Just add it.

 

>

> QiGong -- a modern word, more or less equivalent, etymologically and

> in usage, to " aerobics " . What about daoyin (one of the mss in the

> MaWangDui find, written early 2nd century BC, and an oft used term

> across the two millenia since), or yangxian, shengong, forms of

> Daoist (medical) internal alchemy, or a list of other terms that have

> substantial histories. All this goes under " TuiNa " ?

 

Add it where you will we can all debate where it goes any time here, but at

least it is up :-)

 

>

> If the wiki is rigidly rooted in this index, it's DOA, except for

> students (coerced into TCM taxonomy, at least through licensing exam)

> and those who know nothing outside of that experience and taxonomy.

 

As you can see no problem, there is nothing fixed about a wiki.

orean, ...);

 

> I don't have the time tonight to work out fully such a taxonomy, but

> do believe thinking (together, discussion-wise, over a period of

> time) in this direction it needed to give this thing a life of its own.

 

I think it would be valuable and hope you post it here and also consider adding

topics to

what is on the wiki now and we can adjust as needed.

 

 

 

Davd Botton

[Guest guest]

HI Chris! In accordance with your points below, and

especially with your last point, my suggestion is to

keep the categorisation free-form and relatively lax.

 

There is a lot of opportunity for classification,

categorisation, and other unending bifurcative

phenomena, and perhaps that should be avoided.

 

Perhaps starting with a very general structure, and

simply inputting the different points of view is a

good idea for the time being.

 

Maybe that's one of the first things we can do -

create some very general categories (which, by their

nature, won't be satisfyingly rigorous).

 

In my next post I'll write out the brief top-level

classification I had considered.

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

--- < wrote:

 

> name for modern CCP/PRC orthodox TCM. Possibly also

> other (related)

> traditional Asian systems (other CM perspectives,

> Japanese, Korean, ...);

....

> I don't have the time tonight to work out fully such

> a taxonomy, but

> do believe thinking (together, discussion-wise, over

> a period of

....

> What, for instance, taxonomies were used for

> compendiums of CM or

> various parts of it, across the 2000+ year history

> of documents? Why

> not some entries like the titles of chapters in the

> SuWen or

> ZhenJing, NanJing, etc.

....

> Perhaps more flexibility is possible in that,

> granted initial, framework.

 

 

 

 

_________

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

[Guest guest]

Hi all, some brief ideas on how to structure the new

website.

 

The most important idea in my mind goes something

like this: a prominent title banner that says, in very

big fat letters:

 

TCMPedia

Plural and Heterogenous

 

By the way, shouldn't the website name be changed to:

" CMPedia " ?

 

As far as classification systems go, my thinking was

to go as broad as possible and bifurcate from there:

 

a:

 

- [by Influence]

 

--Daoist

 

--Buddhist

 

--Confucian

 

--Greek

 

--Persian

 

--and so on

 

 

 

b: (Asian Medicine?)

 

- [by Geography]

 

--China

---CCM

----school 1

----school 2 (and so on)

---TCM

 

--Korea

 

--Japan

 

--Vietnam

 

--Tibetan

 

--Ayurvedic

 

 

Once a generally acceptable (but necessarily

non-rigorous) top-level classification has been laid

out, information would be added into the most relevant

category, or perhaps even redundantly (same info into

several relevant categories).

 

The only real issue in my mind is something that Phil

touched on - we could let it all absorb, modify and

edit itself into a homogenous mass, or we could do

something about " authoritative " articles and such. I

feel it is really important to have at least two areas

that are UNeditable: 1. Authoritative / " Scholarly "

writing / data, and 2. Clinical case studies.

 

Hope these are helpful,

Hugo

 

 

 

_________

Try the all-new Mail. " The New Version is radically easier to use " – The

Wall Street Journal

http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

[Guest guest]

Hugo,

 

You raise some interesting points that should be addressed. I hope

something can be worked out.

 

I've checked and CMPedia.com has already been taken. I agree that TCM

is not quite right but then it's better known than CM.

 

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

>

> Hi all, some brief ideas on how to structure the new

> website.

>

> The most important idea in my mind goes something

> like this: a prominent title banner that says, in very

> big fat letters:

>

> TCMPedia

> Plural and Heterogenous

>

> By the way, shouldn't the website name be changed to:

> " CMPedia " ?

>

> As far as classification systems go, my thinking was

> to go as broad as possible and bifurcate from there:

>

> a:

>

> - [by Influence]

>

> --Daoist

>

> --Buddhist

>

> --Confucian

>

> --Greek

>

> --Persian

>

> --and so on

>

>

>

> b: (Asian Medicine?)

>

> - [by Geography]

>

> --China

> ---CCM

> ----school 1

> ----school 2 (and so on)

> ---TCM

>

> --Korea

>

> --Japan

>

> --Vietnam

>

> --Tibetan

>

> --Ayurvedic

>

>

> Once a generally acceptable (but necessarily

> non-rigorous) top-level classification has been laid

> out, information would be added into the most relevant

> category, or perhaps even redundantly (same info into

> several relevant categories).

>

> The only real issue in my mind is something that Phil

> touched on - we could let it all absorb, modify and

> edit itself into a homogenous mass, or we could do

> something about " authoritative " articles and such. I

> feel it is really important to have at least two areas

> that are UNeditable: 1. Authoritative / " Scholarly "

> writing / data, and 2. Clinical case studies.

>

> Hope these are helpful,

> Hugo

>

>

>

> _________

> Try the all-new Mail. " The New Version is radically easier

to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

>

[Guest guest]

Why not traditional medicine pedia or just spell out chinese medicine pedia?

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

________________________________

> Chinese Medicine

> subincor

> Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:43:18 +0000

> Re: TCMpedia - Start Adding Your Info! -- into a

straightjacket?

>

> Hi all, some brief ideas on how to structure the new

> website.

> The most important idea in my mind goes something

> like this: a prominent title banner that says, in very

> big fat letters:

> TCMPedia

> Plural and Heterogenous

> By the way, shouldn't the website name be changed to:

> " CMPedia " ?

> As far as classification systems go, my thinking was

> to go as broad as possible and bifurcate from there:

> a:

> - [by Influence]

> --Daoist

> --Buddhist

> --Confucian

> --Greek

> --Persian

> --and so on

> b: (Asian Medicine?)

> - [by Geography]

> --China

> ---CCM

> ----school 1

> ----school 2 (and so on)

> ---TCM

> --Korea

> --Japan

> --Vietnam

> --Tibetan

> --Ayurvedic

> Once a generally acceptable (but necessarily

> non-rigorous) top-level classification has been laid

> out, information would be added into the most relevant

> category, or perhaps even redundantly (same info into

> several relevant categories).

> The only real issue in my mind is something that Phil

> touched on - we could let it all absorb, modify and

> edit itself into a homogenous mass, or we could do

> something about " authoritative " articles and such. I

> feel it is really important to have at least two areas

> that are UNeditable: 1. Authoritative / " Scholarly "

> writing / data, and 2. Clinical case studies.

> Hope these are helpful,

> Hugo

> ________

> Try the all-new Mail. " The New Version is radically easier to use " –

The Wall Street Journal

> http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

>

 

_______________

Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered by

Pandora.

http://radio.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Attilio,

 

--- <attiliodalberto

wrote:

> I've checked and CMPedia.com has already been taken.

 

Darn it! CCM?

 

 

> I agree that TCM

> is not quite right but then it's better known than

> CM.

 

True. Sometimes we gotta go by the propaganda.

 

Thank you,

Hugo

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Hugo,

 

If that's not bad enough, pedia in English is spelt paedia. It just

gets worse!

 

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

> Hi Attilio,

>

> --- <attiliodalberto

> wrote:

> > I've checked and CMPedia.com has already been taken.

>

> Darn it! CCM?

>

>

>

> > I agree that TCM

> > is not quite right but then it's better known than

> > CM.

>

> True. Sometimes we gotta go by the propaganda.

>

> Thank you,

> Hugo

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

http://uk.messenger.

>

[Guest guest]

--- <attiliodalberto

wrote:

 

> Hugo,

>

> If that's not bad enough, pedia in English is spelt

> paedia. It just gets worse!

 

And don't even get us started on short form Chinese

characters!!

 

Hugo

 

 

 

_________

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

[Guest guest]

On Wednesday 27 December 2006 01:27, wrote:

> Congratulations on a beginning!

>

> It looks like table of contents to a basic primer of TCM.

>

> Can one add to the outline / table of contents? Or create branched

> off trees of topics (hierarchical lists -- like the main index that's

> there now)?

>

> If everything added has to be shoehorned into the given index, that's

> a huge, premptive bias against alternative perspectives of CM, the

> ones already known, or the development of new organizational perspectives.

 

Hi Chris!

 

A database table typically has records and fields. I suppose he can add more

fields to the records or even more tables to the database. It is a bit much

for the users to be determining the database's structure, however.

 

I would imagine that quite a few of the users will not know what tables,

fields and records are and are just looking to submit a " paper " . However,

their paper is most likely going to be stored in a field somewhere. If it

isn't it will be hard for the indexing system to present it in a form that

the search engine can find.

--

Regards,

 

Pete

http://www.pete-theisen.com/

[Guest guest]

> feel it is really important to have at least two areas

> that are UNeditable: 1. Authoritative / " Scholarly "

> writing / data, and 2. Clinical case studies.

>

 

 

You have a good point and certainly I think that we should consider getting some

people to

volunteer as editors for various sections. I don't think that means locking it

down though.

Everything is tracked and at any time can be reverted, so the key would be just

having the

editors keep an eye on changes to their sections (this can be automated) to make

sure they

conform.

 

Nevertheless, I think that should come a little further down the line after

there is more

content say a couple of months from now.

 

I haven't yet had the chance to start dumping my own content in yet, will

probably start some

time this weekend.

 

David Botton

[Guest guest]

> I've checked and CMPedia.com has already been taken. I agree that TCM

> is not quite right but then it's better known than CM.

 

Some one should consider writing up an article about the origins of 'TCM' its

relationship to

CM in general and add it to the site. That would help to introduce students and

others to the

richness of CM that goes beyond that one school of thought. However, TCM for

better or

worse is recognized today by the public at large and brand recognition is worth

something

when trying to sell the fruits of our labors :-)

 

In this case tcmpedia.org and .com are both directed to the site, if you lose

out on the .com

you always end up with confusion in the end.

 

David Botton

[Guest guest]

Hi David,

 

--- David Botton <david wrote:

 

> volunteer as editors for various sections. I don't

> think that means locking it down though.

 

No, I'm pretty sure it means locking it down. Can you

imagine what we would all think of medline if anyone

could go in and " edit " entries? In actuality, it is

very important to have both sides - Editable content,

and uneditable content. Phil, I believe, also

mentioned this.

 

 

> Nevertheless, I think that should come a little

> further down the line after there is more

> content say a couple of months from now.

 

Sure.

Thanks,

Hugo

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

At 12:27 PM 12/27/2006, " " <attiliodalberto

wrote:

 

>If that's not bad enough, pedia in English is spelt paedia. It just

>gets worse!

 

Wikipedia is American, hence 'pedia'. (Britannica is British).

 

Maxim -- Brits and Yanks have a lot in common, except for the language.

 

As in

color colour

hema- haema- (re blood)

(in general Greek dipthongs tend to be spelled out in (Queen's?)

English, and reduced to a single letter in (American) English.)

variations on -ize / -ise

and so on.

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/609 - Release 12/29/2006 4:48

PM