Group items tagged

4. Hence for “used in” tag and “proved by” tags, they may also be the tags of the type “Area of mathematics” “keywords” . Besides the view of Hierarchy (only for “Area of mathematics” as the folders view), and the view of “Tag clouds” (mostly for “keywords” and also for “Area of mathematics” ), there is a third view for “used in” tag and “proved by” tags, as “Road Map” view. For example, if we choose two tags, one as the “starting point” and another as the “ending point”, then the “Road Map” function will automatically give the graph structure to all related tags, give the road map from the “starting point” to the “ending point”. Of course, this task is tough for temporary, and might not be feasible. Since, we maynot determine very clearly the level of “use in”/”proved by” for every single page. For example, tag-1 is used in tag-2, and tag-2 is used in tag-3, so in tag-3 page, tag-1 might be included as the “used in” tag. If so, that might harm the structure of the automatically generating “Road Map”. But anyway, it is still possible to be solved if finer algorithm and finer page-management is considered.

2. Hence, it is able to separate “Area of mathematics” “keywords” as two disjoint set. The advantage is that, we are then able to give the tags of “Area of mathematics” “keywords” as different font colors in the Tag list page and other related applications, which is friendly to our eyes and intuitions . 3. I still donot have a good understanding for the “used in” tags, what is relation of “used in” tags with “Area of mathematics” “keywords”? And beside “used in” tags, why donot apply “proved by” tags. Of course, in theory, you can deduce the “proved by” tags from “used in” tags from the information of the whole site. But for single pages, “proved by” tags are still different from the “used in” tags. I have said that, give different font colors to “Area of mathematics” tags and “keywords” tags. So is that possible give some picture-property to the “proved by” tags and “used in” tags? 3. Tricki still donot support “Tags Clouds”. This is another view of how to organize tags besides hierarchical structure. For example, in the tag list, give the “Area of mathematics” tags and “keywords” tags the subscripts and superscript. The subscripts shows the number how many other tags are “used in” this tag. And the superscripts shows the number how many other tags are “proved by” this tag. When the user click the subscript/superscript, then they are lead to that corresponding tag list.

Tricki is still new to me. I would like suggest that, in “Post new comment”， under “Subject”, it is better to add another blank as “Tags”, which already have the existed tags for this page, and the authors for comment can add new tags when they “Post new comment”. Tags seems to have three type in Tricki, as “Area of mathematics” “Keywords” “Used in” For that, I suggest, 1. “Area of mathematics” can only be added and edited by the super members, and a) is supported by a hierarchical structure (like multi-level recursive nested folders) . Now the sub-tags is just listed in alphabet sequence. b) when “keywords” concide with “Area of mathematics”, then it is automatically regarded as “Area of mathematics”。 c) For building the hierarchical structure of “Area of mathematics”, it will be convenient, if automatically take the large names as the sub-tags of small name. For example, take “Prime Number Theorem” as the sub-tag of “Prime numbers” automatically， and regard “Fourier inversion formula” as the sub-tag of “Fourier analysis’ automatically, if they are both the type of “Area of mathematics”. Of course, keywords can be contributed by any members.

[9] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-8-6 7:42:35]    贾伟博主倡议建立实体交叉学院，对其在中国大学建设过程中的重要，我深表赞同。 跟此帖相关，小特区因为缺少实体机制，很容易让国外已经习惯了正二八经办事的人，步步心惊胆战。大特区，因其成本，滞碍难行。 相比起来，中特区既能形成实体机制，又能一校一特区，每校可在实践中采取不同的特区政策，最后竞争的结果就是那些好的或可行的特区政策留存发展下来。 至于为什么把实体学术交叉机构，作为“中型特区”思想的载体，除因为现在交叉科学确实重要，讲给领导人听，领导人也能听得懂。更重要的是，利用交叉机制的优势，可将好的特区政策，传播到全校。 可以说，没有“交叉机制”的特区，只不过是行政领导们的高价玩具而已。

6] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-4-10 15:09:19]    这种特区的建设，相比于李老师所述的小特区，大特区，更有历史上的实例可循，如剑桥大学耶鲁大学，只不过我们搬过来的时候，要缩小其师生入选的范围，不是所有该大学的师生，都能进入这个特区的。 相当于加了一层膜，既有遴选功能，又有保护功能。

[10] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-8-6 7:47:11]    『7楼：在保护特殊人才的同时，也很容易形成特权阶层。 』 交叉学院，应该采取与传统学院不同的管理方式，从而用机制避免大项目趋势，从而可避免形成恶性特权阶层（肯定会有特权阶层，大学还是一个实行等级社会的地方，不是资本社会，据张五常研究，人类社会只有这两种型态，关键是要良性循环）。 特区与交叉学院的相关博文，都收藏在 http://groups.diigo.com/mathcoffee/bookmark/tag/交叉机制

[8] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-8-1 3:18:27]    『博主：成立全新的交叉学院并以此为基本管理单元实行滚动式发展和更新。』 说到点子上去了，哪个大学若能以此为重点，必然会走出先手棋，占据大学发展制高点。 将此帖收录到diigo group中，featured 精华贴。 http://groups.diigo.com/mathcoffee/bookmark/tag/大学建设

10] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-8-1 3:33:47]    在学部和工会，实行不同的管理制度，如此才能建立交叉机制。如果仅是重新设立新学院，则很容易步入原有的管理套路，而那种套路，对于需要灵活反应的交叉学科来说，是不适宜的。

[14] 标题： 发表评论人：arithwsun [2009-8-2 3:35:54]    『学部+工会意味着双倍的工资，也意味着双倍的学术休假，实行起来，想去的未必会少。』 这个思路，如果结合当前现实实行，恰有可能产生李小文老师所说的那种“学术特区”功能。 可将新增出的工会中某一Institute或Lab（也可是学部中新增的某一Center），作为学术特区，强调其准入机制，并不是大学原有科学家想去就去的。 保留原有机构，除前面所述真正产生交叉机制的好处，对于当前现实来讲，还有一个好处就在这里，有可能形成学术特区，而随时间推移，特区效应又能在全校范围内扩散。 没有交叉机制的“特区”，只不是是行政领导的高价玩具而已。