Talk:tangible media object

RFV
This and same author's media bridge seem to have been used by only one author, possibly in a patent filing. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If attestable, move to RFD. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sum of parts, surely. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Widsith, if cited move to RFD anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not sum of parts at all. They are, taken together, a unique identifying term which has been coined in a growing body of work by the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) giving rise to a collection of new technology such as that found in the following US Patents: 8,230,337 (Associating objects with corresponding behaviors); 8,194,986 (Methods and systems for content processing); 8,180,844 (System for linking from objects to remote resources) 8,108,484 (Fingerprints and machine-readable codes combined with user characteristics to obtain content or information); 8,051,169 (Methods and systems useful in linking from objects to remote resources); 8,023,691 (Methods involving maps, imagery, video and steganography); 7,991,157 (Methods and systems responsive to features sensed from imagery or other data); 7,760,905 (Wireless mobile phone with content processing); 7,257,583 (System and method for updating an on-device application catalog in a mobile device receiving a push message from a catalog server indicating availability of an application for download; 7,065,559 (Media bridge method and apparatus)]


 * The complete phrase tangible media object is term of art employed by technology research groups such as the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) and in such patented processes as Media Bridge and Apparatus (US 7,065,559 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7065559)).
 * First, each of the two definitions needs three independent citations in durably archived media (likely to survive, not subject to deletion or editing). The citations may help establish the definition as one that it is not SoP. I don't think that a family of patent applications counts as more than one independent citation. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In response, see http://tangible.media.mit.edu/, discussing Professor Ishii's discoveries and findings in the new world of giving physical form to digital information and vice versa; ergo the birth of the now ubiquitous complete phrase, "tangible media object."
 * ((see also, discussion of radical tangible atoms) http://tangible.media.mit.edu/vision/)). There is no family of patents set forth above.  Each patent represents a complete and separate technology (non obvious and unrelated innovation), yet each contains the touchstone term, championed by Professor Ishii's MIT Tangible Media Group, now known as the "tangible media object".  Many citations exist within the patents cited and the MIT Tangible Media Group links cited which support a non SoP stand-alone definition of the new tech term, "tangible media object."  See also, http://www.neverdesign.net/oldsite/old/images/kamelion/kamelion.pdf (tangible media objects in music); http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/r.harper/papers/videoworkchi.pdf (Microsoft scholarly "white paper" on videoworks as tangible media objects); http://pdf.courses.qut.edu.au/coursepdf/qut_IX69_24338_dom_cms.pdf (Queensland University of Technology course description KIB 314 in Tangible Media including coursework on "tangible media objects" within technology).
 * Vanguard33, you're missing the point, though I imagine you're doing so deliberately to promote your own interests, so no amount of us explaining will help. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be wasting my breath, but I have looked at a few of your sources and can give you an idea of where you are going wrong here. It is useless to present us with documents from the web unless they can be shown to be durably archived somewhere (that is, other than on a server).  They will not count towards verification.  Even so, looking at a few, they do not contain the phrase "tangible media object".  We need that exact phrase for their to be an entry.  Likewise, patent 8 230 337 has only "tangible computer-readable medium".  8 194 986 does not contain "tangible".  8 180 844 has only "tangible object".  8 104 484 does not contain the word "tangible" and in any case is not independent of 8 230 337 (same principle authors Rhoads and Rodriguez)—and so on and so on.  Exactly the same terminology is not important for an encyclopedia article, but we are writing a dictionary here. Spinning Spark  10:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mglovesfun: While appreciated, your insinuative comment is off the mark. Member of a technology association with no agenda other than a student and follower of all things tech and digital.  Spinnerspark:  Thank you for reviewing some of the cited patents.  You missed a few including 7,065,559 which makes direct reference with examples to a "tangible media object" as well as the published sources on the MIT Media Object Lab site, Professor Ishii's own white papers (also published on that cite link provided) and the academic white papers and course curricula from Queensland University of Technology including published definitions for "tangible media object."  This is not an encyclopedic discourse, rather a new term given rise in each of these published sources and now popularized in a particular technology corridor (e.g., MIT Media Object Lab).  With all due respect, there is no agenda here other than to record use of a new and important technical term.
 * There are no acceptable cites in the entry so it will be deleted. Personally, I am not willing to spend any more time reviewing more of your sources even if you had been thoughtful enough to provide clickable links or the text of the cites. Spinning Spark  13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding what sum of parts (SOP) is referring to here. It doesn't have to mean that these are all just independent words, but that at least one of the words isn't part of the idiom. There should really be an an entry for tangible media, not this entry. This entry just refers to an object used in tangible media. We don't need entries for things like "tangible media system", "tangible media interface", "tangible media interactivity", etc., and we don't need this- because they all should be covered by tangible media plus the entries for the other parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the only two valid citations I could find at Books, Scholar, News, Groups, and Patent. We need another one. Any ideas? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest the following: S. Jang, C. Shin, Y. Oh, W. Woo, GIST U-VR-Lab, S. Korea, Introduction of 'ubiHome' Testbed, (p.3) @  http://icserv.gist.ac.kr/mis/publications/data/2005/P3_04(seiie%20jang).pdf ("TMCS is a tangible user interface providing intuitive ways to access and control digital media contents with identity (What) of object such as CD, picture and movie title. See items A, implimented TMCS and B, 'Tangible Media Object' and controller.")
 * Could I find a copy in print in a library in the US or the UK. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to find the proceedings of the conference on WorldCat which has many major libraries, especially university libraries: No joy. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)