9

 [9]
Referring next to FIG. 3R, operations of the STAN—3 system 30R/310/410 will now be described using a perspective schematic format having concentric cylindrical shells (e.g., denoted as 30R.2, 30R.3, etc., and progressing radially inward) and showing how child and co-sibling topic nodes (CSiTN's) may be organized within a branch space (inner cylinder 30R.10) owned by a parent node (such as parent topic node PaTN 30R.30) and how personalized (e.g., idiosyncratic) codings of different users (e.g., 30R.0A, 30R.0B) in corresponding individualized contexts (represented at the outer periphery of the concentric cylindrical shells by individualized context segments 30R.1, 30R.5? of the exemplary left and right side users) progress sequentially through data processing parts (30R.2, 30R.3, 30R.4, etc.) of the illustrated system 30R so as to become cross-correlated (e.g., matched) with collective or communal codings provided by the collective of the users and illustrated as being more towards the central vertical axis (ZTsBr—also representing a Z-direction topic space branch) of the illustrated concentric cylindrical shells. The generated cross-correlations (e.g., matchings) between peripherally generated CFi's or other such user state reporting signals (e.g., bubble 30R.4 a) and cross-correlated, child nodes (e.g., 30R.9 c) of the illustrated topic space region (TSR) lead to the production of signals representing logical cross-associations as between the respective users (e.g., 30R.0A, 30R.0B) and respective portions of the collectively usable informational resources provided within, or linked to by, the CSiTN's (child nodes) organized within the perspective-wise illustrated branch space 30R.10. These logical cross-associations may identify respective chat or other forum participation opportunities (e.g., chat room 30R.60) to which each respective system user may be respectively invited; and/or respective other users (e.g., topic experts) with whom each respective system user (e.g., 30R.0A) may be respectively connected; and/or non-forum other resources (e.g., research suggestions, conference notifications, etc.) of which each respective system user may be alerted to.
In FIG. 3R, each of the illustrated users (30R.0A, 30R.0B) is intentionally drawn as being relatively small sized and having a correspondingly small sized, linking device (e.g., 30R.00, for example a miniature smartphone) which empowers the user (e.g., 30R.0A) to have signals representing monitored ones of his/her attention giving activities transmitted (reported, see for example 30Y.61 of FIG. 3Y) to the remote, functionally-bigger and more powerful data processing resources of the system core for cross-matching of current user context and current user attention giving activities with points, nodes or subregions of system-maintained Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces (CARSs), where the cross-matched parts of the CARSs (see for example 370.7? of FIG. 3Y) logically link to collective informational resources generated by collective activities of many system users (e.g., most popular on-topic URL's, most popular on-topic keywords, etc.). In other words, the one (30R.0A) is empowered to selectively connect to context and focus-appropriate informational resources (e.g., 30R.30) of the many by use of a relatively small and functionally simple interconnect device (e.g., 30R.00).
One machine-implemented and automated process followed here starts with the exemplary first user 30R.0A shown near the bottom left corner of FIG. 3R and the activities/states monitoring operations of his/her local interconnect device (30R.00). That first user 30R.0A has a respective, current and individualized context 30R.1 within which he/she is deemed to be currently operating. That individualized and user-specific context 30R.1 may have a counterpart context node (not shown) in the system-maintained context space (see FIG. 3S) where the counterpart context node is less individualized, less user-specific and more generic and optionally normalized so as to serve as a counterpart context node that defines a current context of many similarly situated users, not necessarily just that of the one individualized user (30R.0A). Due to lack of drawing space in FIG. 3R, item 30R.1 will also at times be used to represent the multi-users generic context, where the latter may shed context-based illuminating light on a corresponding, multi-users servicing and thus relatively generic topic node (or node of another non-context space). For sake of example in illustrating the difference between individualized and more generic (more communally common) contexts, the first user 30R.0A of one exemplary case may currently present him/herself as being a Fifth Grade Student at Public School number PS 279 in New York City and having Mr. Bass as his/her history teacher. However, many of such user-specific details will generally not be reflected in the counterpart context node of the system-maintained context space (XS) to which the individualized context (30R.1) of the first user 30R.0A will be cross-correlated (e.g., matched or mapped). Instead, there will be a corresponding node in context space for all Fifth Grade Students and perhaps all such students who are in the contextual state of now focusing-upon a homework task associated with their history teacher. One of the automated data processing operations carried out by the STAN—3 system in such a case will be to light up (illuminate) the collective/generic, Doing-Homework/Fifth Grade/History context node (not shown) as being a system-maintained node currently cross-associated with the user-specific context 30R.1 of individual user 30R.0A. This occurs shortly after the individualized context 30R.1 of that user has been automatically determined by the system based on physical context (XP) reporting signals received for that first user and/or based on other context reporting signals (e.g., biometric) sent to the system core regarding the contextual state of the first user 30R.0A. The concave symbol drawn at 30R.1 of FIG. 3R for representing the first user's individualized context may be seen as representative of that (the individualized context) and also, later in this description, as being separately representative of a context-appropriate illumination provided by the counterpart context node (not shown in FIG. 3R) for use by cross-correlation modules within the system (see 30Y.50 in FIG. 3Y and the non-individualized context signal 30Y.36 which drives it) that make cross-correlations between recently received CFi's (30Y.4) and context-appropriate nodes (e.g., 30Y.8, 30Y.9) in hybrid space.
For sake of completeness, FIG. 3R shows some of the individualized profile records of the first user 30R.0A in the upper right corner of the drawing. These can include, the currently activated PEEP record 30R.21, currently activated PHAFUEL record 30R.22, other currently activated personhood profiles 30R.24, one or more currently activated social dynamics (PSDIP) profiles 30R.25, one or more currently activated, topic-centric profiles (a.k.a. Domain specific profiles) 30R.26 and one or more currently activated, context-centric personal profiles 30R.27. The context-centric personal profiles 30R.27 may include highly personalized, individualized data about the specific user 30R.0A such as what specific school he/she attends, at what hours, in which classroom etc. However, for the sake of safety and privacy protection, almost none of that gets exposed outside of the user's account settings control except to the extent that the user (or an authorized guardian) gives permission for. For example, even the fact that the user is in Fifth Grade may be blocked from being shared and instead the user's context may be output in a normalized (de-individualized) form of K1-8 or K5-8 elementary school grade levels so as to give only an approximate range rather than more revealing data. However, if the user elects to remain more private about his/her context in this manner, the system will often not be able to home in on narrower context nodes/subregions within its context space (XS) as it tries to match the user with context-appropriate informational resources. Instead the system will rely on lower resolution (wider scope) subregions of context space (e.g., grade school history homework as the operative context for co-received keywords of “lincoln” and “address” for the above Abe-Lincoln example). In many instances, that alone may be good enough for automatically getting the user to the informational resources cross-associated with what the user is currently focusing-upon.
While the user (e.g., 30R.0A) is operating under his/her current individualized context 30R.1, the user will generally have user-internal cognitions. There are at least two different kinds of such possible mental cognitions, conscious and subconscious cognitions. These conscious and subconscious cognitions are respectively denoted as 30R.2 b and 30R.2 a in FIG. 3R and they are shown as occurring radially outward of cylindrical virtual shell 30R.3 of FIG. 3R. Not all user cognitions are outwardly expressed or expressed by means of a user-supplied coding in a manner whereby the cognition could be understood based on the user-supplied outer manifestation. Some cognitions remain hidden as ones that even the user does consciously perceive as being there. It is not the intent of, nor does the present disclosure provide a means for directly determining exactly what a user's private cognitions are. However, with that said, it is within the contemplation of the present disclosure that an individualized fMRI device, EEG device and/or the like may be used, if permitted by the user, for automatically determining what areas of the user's brain are currently most active. Such, machine-facilitated determinations may shed light on the user's current mental state (e.g., mostly emotional versus mostly unemotional and logical).
Moving radially inward in the depiction of FIG. 3R, in other words, in the direction of arrow 30R.75, and thus inwardly of the private cognitions wall 30R.3, there will be various, “coded expressions” that the user exhibits as externally detectable manifestations based on his/her internal cognitions (30R.2 a, 30R.2 b). These externally detectable manifestations may include facial expressions, other body language expressions, changes in biological state (e.g., heart rate, breathing rate, etc.) as picked up by sensors operatively coupled to the STAN—3 system, and so on. They may also include outwardly expressed codings in the forms of foreign and/or native language words or other textual streams. Such manifestations are identified in FIG. 3R as user-expressed and personal codings 30R.3 a. The user's currently activated PEEP records (30R.21) may be used for decoding body language and biometric other ones of some of these user-expressed and personal codings 30R.3 a, where the PEEP-based decodings produce data signals representing the understood implications of the individualized user's body language and biometric other ones of such user-expressed and personal codings 30R.3 a.
One subset of the user's personal codings 30R.3 a is referred to here as the user's authored-coded expressions 30R.4 a. The latter may include user-selected keywords (30R.4 b, which selections are understood to include user-typed out keywords), user-selected URL's (30R.4 c, which selections are understood to include user-typed out hyperlink specifications), user-selected ERL's (30R.4 d, which Exclusive Resource Locaters are ditto-wise understood to include user-typed out hyperlink specifications), and so on.
The respective user-authored coded expressions 30R.4 a are transmitted by way of CFi carrying data packets (see 30U.10 of FIG. 3U) to the system core (e.g., in-cloud servers) for further processing therein. One of the processings is that of normalizing individualized and/or idiosyncratic expressions (codings) relative to an agreed-upon common coding such as for example converting foreign language words or phrases into a predetermined common language (e.g., into English) as already described above. Another is that of normalizing less often used identifications of persons or things (e.g., “Yo Ho Joe”) into more universally recognized expressions (e.g., “Joe-the-Throw Nebraska”) as also described above. Yet another of the processings is that of augmenting user-supplied textual codings with additional and more-universally used codings as also described above. These normalizing/augmenting operations may be carried out using respective, coding normalizing/augmenting profiles 30R.23 of the respective individualized users or groups of such users. In one embodiment, if the individualized user's coding normalizing/augmenting profile 30R.23 indicates that the user prefers to receive feedback from the STAN—3 system in his/her non-normative (e.g., foreign) language rather than in the agreed-upon, common or meta-coded language (e.g., American English), the user's coding normalizing/augmenting profile 30R.23 is also used in the reverse direction, for the case when signals (e.g., invitations) representing informational resources are returned to the user. In other words, the returned informational resources are caused to be in; or are automatically translated to be in, the user's preferred non-normative language (British English rather than American English for example).
The respective, and optionally normalized/optionally augmented CFi's of the respective individual users are collectively represented by packet 30R.8 in FIG. 3R. Due to drawing space limitations in FIG. 3R, it was not practical to show that the user selected keywords 30R.8 b are passed through coding normalizing/augmenting process 30R.23, that the user selected URL's 30R.8 c are also passed through the coding normalizing/augmenting process 30R.23, and also that the user selected ERL's 30R.8 d are passed through the same and so on. Instead, arrow indicators 30R.4 b, 30R.4 c, 30R.4 d are drawn to represent this aspect. User selected meta-tags or other textual type CFi's keywords may be similarly processed by the coding normalizing/augmenting process 30R.23.
The core-received and optionally normalized (30R.23) packets 30R.8 (generally, or 30R.8 b, 8 c, 8 d, etc. more specifically) are next parsed, categorized and re-grouped (clustered as likes together with alikes of a same categorization) within the system core as already explained above with respect to FIG. 3D and FIG. 3V. In other words, trial clusters are formed and cross-correlated against sanity checking nodes within the system-maintained Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces and/or sanity checking nodes within online search engines, wiki-sites and so on. Clusters of clusters may be formed and also checked for probable sanity. Then the clustered cognition-representing data objects (e.g., clustered keyword-carrying CFi's 30Y.4 of FIG. 3Y) are supplied to a respective hybrid space scanner (30Y.50) together with corresponding context-representing data (30Y.36, which signal represents non-individualized context) and in response thereto, the hybrid space scanner (30Y.50) steps progressively through a hybrid context-and-other-cognition space (e.g., context/topic space) trying to find corresponding and more strongly cross-correlated points, nodes or subregions (e.g., 30Y.7, 30Y.8, 30Y.9) that best match with recently received CFi's (30Y.4) and the latest determination 30Y.36 of user-perceived context.
Stated more simply, the individual user's current and specific context (30R.1) is cross-matched with a system-maintained and more generic context; the individual user's current and specific outward expressions (e.g., user-selected keywords 30R.4 b) are cross-matched with system-maintained and more generic expressions of same type (e.g., more popular keywords, URL's, ERL's etc.), a hybrid expressions-and-context Cognitive Attention Receiving Space is pointed to (e.g., by hybrid space scanner 30Y.50 of FIG. 3Y) and then informational resources provided directly or indirectly by those pointed-to expressions/context hybrid points, nodes or subregions are fetched and transmitted to the user in the form of invitations to online chat rooms directed to the same cognitions and/or in the form of other such provisions of context and focus relevant informational resources.
In the discussion regarding FIG. 3Y, it was mentioned that a given grandparent node can define a first subregion in a corresponding Cognitive Attention Receiving Space, and that a respective parent node can define a smaller, and thus higher resolution second subregion in the corresponding CARS and so on. This concept is better shown in the example of FIG. 3R where the central cylindrical region 30R.10 contains all the child nodes of parent node 30R.30 and where parent node 30R.30 is a child of grandparent node 30R.50, and further where conical symbol 30R.40 represents the children containerizing space of the respective grandparent node 30R.50. Parent node 30R.30 is contained within the containerizing space 30R.40 of grandparent node 30R.50. Not all containerizing spaces (e.g., 30R.40, 30R.10) have to be the same in terms of internal spatial and/or hierarchical organization. For example, the grandparent node's containerizing space 30R.40 may have a conical 3-dimensional spatial organization where diameter increases as a function of Z-direction depth, whereas the illustrated parent node 30R.30 is shown to have a respective, children containerizing space 30R.10 that internally has a cylindrical and 3-dimensional spatial configuration with respective coordinates defining Z-direction depth, radial direction distance (RTsBr) from the vertical axis of rotation (ZTsBr) and angle of rotation (theta) relative to a predefined North, East, South, West frame of reference. (In one embodiment, each parent node may include a definition of the spatial configuration of its children's containerizing space. That space may be other than 3-dimensional. It could have dimensional axes greater than 3 in number; or fewer than 3, e.g., a flattened disc in place of the cylinder or a vertical or a horizontal line in place of the cylinder.)
FIG. 3R shows merely as an example, the case where parent node 30R.30 and grandparent node 30R.50 are respective topic nodes within the system-maintained topic space (see also 313? of FIG. 3D) and they both reside on the system's universal and hierarchical “A”-tree (AT) and they both have respective child nodes inside their corresponding branch spaces, 30R.40, 30R.10. Some of a set of pre-existing child nodes within cylindrical branch space 30R.10 are represented by child-and-co-sibling nodes CSiTN1 (a.k.a. 30R.9 a), CSiTN2 (a.k.a. 30R.9 b), and CSiTN3 (a.k.a. 30R.9 c). The latter three child nodes, 30R.9 a-9 c all spatially reside at a roughly middle depth level of the Z-direction depth axis of cylindrical branch space 30R.10 and inward of a circle having a roughly middle length radius, RTsBr.
In the illustrated embodiment 30R, almost any migrating topic node (see 30S.53 of FIG. 3S) can drift into the interior of the illustrated cylindrical branch space 30R.10 of topic node PaTN (a.k.a. 30R.30). Recall that the governance bodies of each respective topic node (or other kind of Cognitive Attention Receiving Space node) can vote to break their node's tethering (see tethers near area 313.51? of FIG. 3E) away from an old point in topic space and drift the node to a new place in topic space, for example into cylindrical branch space 30R.10. However, when their node enters branch space 30R.10 (and in accordance with one aspect of the present disclosure) it cannot attach anywhere it wants. Instead, it is first relegated to a basement level 30R.19 of the space and to being disposed radially outward of a predefined, sibling-acceptance radius (e.g., RTsBr) of the space. To rise higher than the basement level 30R.19, the newly drifted-in topic node (not shown, see 30S.53 of FIG. 3S) has to receive acceptance and net-positive promotion votes from governance bodies of the parent node 30R.30. To move inwardly, towards the more mainstream core of the cylindrical branch space 30R.10, the newly drifted-in topic node has to receive acceptance and net-positive promotion votes from governance bodies of already-clustered-in-the-core sibling nodes (e.g., 30R.9 a-9 c) of roughly the same Z-direction depth or level.
More specifically, child nodes (e.g., 30R.9 a-9 c) who receive net-positive promotion votes from governance bodies of parent node (PaTN, 30R.30) get to move upwardly towards closer spatial clustering with the parent node. Child nodes who receive net-negative promotion votes from parent node governance bodies get repelled away from the parent node (PaTN) and thus migrate towards the basement level 30R.19 of the illustrated cylindrical branch space 30R.10. Thus the parent node governance bodies exert vertically promoting (up) or demoting (down) pressures on the spatial dispositions of child nodes found within the corresponding children-containing branch space 30R.10 of that parent node 30R.30. It should be recalled that the nature of a given topic node can change over time as new chat rooms or other forum participation sessions tether onto that given topic node or de-tether and move away to preferably hover about other topic nodes. Thus the votes given by parent node governance bodies to underlying child nodes can vary over time. (It is to be understood that it is within the contemplation of the present disclosure to have chat rooms or other forum participation sessions that are simultaneously shared by plural topic nodes, in which case the sessions may be perceived as if they loop in and out of orbit with each of the planet-wise represented topic nodes. It is also within the contemplation of the present disclosure to have chat rooms or other forum participation sessions that orbit about cognitive-sense-representing clustering center points rather than about any specific topic node or other such node in another comparable space. In the later case, the chat or other forum participation opportunities presented to users may be based on hierarchical and/or spatial distance of a matched node to corresponding nearby clustering center points rather than based on the identity of the matched node itself and the chat or other forum participation sessions deemed to be tethered to that node.)
In a similar manner, same Z-direction depth level co-siblings (e.g., CSiTN1-N3) within a branch space can cast positive and thus R-direction attracting pressures on nearby other co-siblings or negative and thus R-direction repelling pressures on nearby co-siblings. Eventually, as these various votes are cast (implicit or explicitly), co-siblings of a branch space whose governance bodies like each other, come to be spatially disposed as clusters near each other while co-siblings whose respective governance bodies dislike each other (vote to repel the other away), come to be spatially spaced apart in the corresponding cylindrical branch space (e.g., 30R.10). In this way a rogue topic node that drifts itself into branch space 30R.10, but is disliked by substantially all other occupants of that branch space (e.g., 30R.10) and is disliked by substantially all governance bodies of the parent node 30R.30 will be shifted into, or kept in the periphery of the basement level 30R.19 of the siblings-containing space. On the other hand, an in-harmony topic node that drifts itself into branch space 30R.10, and is well liked by substantially all other, central core occupants of that branch space (e.g., 30R.10) and is well liked by substantially all governance bodies of the parent node 30R.30 will be shifted into, or kept at the upper level of that branch space and clustered near the center of the space (close to the vertical Z-direction axis, ZTsBr, of the topic space branch). All child nodes within branch space 30R.10 are considered to be hierarchically tethered on the “A”-tree (AT) as a child of the corresponding parent node (PaTN). However, in terms of spatial disposition, some of the child nodes are deemed to be more favored by the parent and co-siblings while others are deemed to be less favored by the parent and the major mass of co-siblings.
When it comes to determining which sibling node will push (repel) another away without being itself displaced from its current mooring, the notion of strong anchors and weak anchors may be used. Each child node is assigned a respective, anchor strength score. For example, anchor tether 30R.9 d of co-sibling node 30R.9 c is assigned a local strength value based on a number of factors such as, but not limited to, the number of system users who regularly use that topic node directly or indirectly (e.g., through an attached chat room like 30R.60), the reputations and/or topic-relevant credentials of the system users who regularly use that topic node 30R.9 c, and so on. However, the locally assigned tethering strength 30R.9 d is not the effective tethering strength when push comes to shove. Instead, if a challenged node (e.g., 30R.9 c) is repelled by a challenging node (e.g., a new corner node (not shown) in layer 30R.19), the challenged node (and the challenging node) each get to inherit addition positive or negative tethering strength scores respectively from spatially nearby other nodes which respectively “like” or “dislike” the corresponding challenged and challenging node (e.g., a new corner node in layer 30R.19). More specifically, since a new corner node will often have no adjacent friend nodes that “like” that new corner node, the new corner node will have a relatively low tethering strength score. On the other hand, an already well established node (e.g., 30R.9 c) that has many strongly tethered “friend” nodes (e.g., 30R.9 b, 30R.9 a) lending a positive tethering support value on top of the first node's native tethering strength 30R.9 d will have a significantly greater, effective tethering strength. Hence, when push comes to shove, it will be the repulsive new-corner who gets spatially pushed away (by a distance proportional to repulsing votes and inversely proportional to effective tethering strength) while the counter-repulsing, established node (e.g., 30R.9 c) will mostly stand its ground. Through a series of repulsing and attracting, pushes and shoves of this nature, the various nodes in each horizontal level of the cylindrical branch space 30R.10 will sort it out amongst themselves as to which nodes get to spatially cluster near the central or mainstream core section and which nodes are marginalized toward the periphery (pushed out in the direction of outward bound arrow 30R.71).
Vertical positioning of nodes within the cylindrical branch space 30R.10 can be driven primary by votes cast by the more influential (more highly regarded) governance bodies of the parent node 30R.30. In one embodiment, “like” and “dislike” votes from sibling nodes in the horizontal layers directly above (and optionally also directly below) are factored into the vote. Thus, if both the parent node governance bodies and the higher up sibling nodes vote to “like” an up-and-coming node currently disposed beneath them, that node gets promoted upwardly in the Z-direction so as to be closer to the top level of the cylindrical branch space 30R.10. On the other hand, if the parent node governance bodies and the higher up sibling nodes vote to “dislike” a despised node beneath them, that node gets demoted downwardly in the Z-direction so as to be closer to the basement level 30R.19. Through a series of repulsing and attracting, pushes and shoves of this nature, the parent node 30R.30 as well as the various nodes in each horizontal level of the cylindrical branch space 30R.10 will sort it out amongst themselves as to which nodes (see 30S.77 of FIG. 3S) get to spatially cluster near the top of the branch space 30R.10 and which will be pushed down into the basement level 30R.19.
When a group of system users (e.g., those who are members of a chat room like 30R.60 and who) are seeking a child node within the specific cylindrical branch space 30R.10 to link up with (via tether 30R.63 of respective tethering strength), one of the factors that may be considered during the selection process is where in the cylindrical interior of branch space 30R.10 do each of the candidate child nodes (e.g., 30R.9 a,b,c) place, why, and who are the other child nodes that “like” the spatially placed candidate node or “dislike” it. In accordance with one aspect of the present disclosure, the effective tethering strength scores (e.g., 30R.9 d) of respective candidate nodes are made available to system users or chat room governance entities for consideration when those entities are making a decision as to which one or more child nodes to link up with. A relatively high, effective tethering strength score means the candidate node (e.g., 30R.9 c) is well “liked” by the other nodes in its immediate neighborhood while a relatively low (or even negative), effective tethering strength score means the candidate node is “disliked”. It is up to the internal politics of each in-drifting chat room (e.g., 30R.60) to decide if they want to associate with the underdogs in that cylindrical branch space 30R.10 or with the overlords and why.
Child nodes (e.g., 30R.9 a) inside cylindrical branch space 30R.10 may cross-link to other branch spaces, such as the illustrated 30R.5 to the left of 30R.9 a. The inter-branch space linking linkage, 30R.7 a/b (which has sub parts 30R.7 a and 30R.7 b) may be one that points to a relatively wide subregion of the other space as does, the wide horned, first linking symbol 30R.7 a; or the inter-branch space linking may be one that points to a relatively narrower subregion of the other space as does, the narrower horned, second linking symbol 30R.7 b. For example, the narrower horned, second linking symbol 30R.7 b may point to child node 30R.6 within other branch space 30R.5. That other branch space 30R.5 may be disposed inside of topic space; or it may be disposed inside of a different Cognitive Attention Receiving Space; for example inside a URL's expressions clustering space. If the latter case is true, then a system user who is directed to topic node 30R.9 a (a.k.a. CSiTn1) is concomitantly also indirectly directed to identified URL expressions which are spatially clustered within the ambit of narrow horn 30R.7 b or wider horn 30R.7 a.
Just as keyword expressions may be spatially clustered in a semantic/Thesaurus sense near to each other in layer 371 of FIG. 3E and/or near to predefined cognitive sense representing clustering center points, so too URL-defining expressions (not shown) may be provided in the exemplary other branch space 30R.5 of FIG. 3R as clustered together, other cognition representing data objects. The so-clustered, URL-defining expressions (not shown, see instead 30S.75 a,b of FIG. 3S) may not be textually interrelated to each other, but they may be interrelated in some other way (a different cognitive sense), and thus they are caused to become spatially clustered together within a virtual URL's space (see 30S.72 of FIG. 3S) based on the user-population defined senses of cross-space linking horns 30R.7 a and 30R.7 b of FIG. 3R where the user-population defined senses may be expressed by communal actions that place or move corresponding clustering center points (see 370.9? of FIG. 3Y) hierarchically and/or spatially as voted upon or otherwise agreed to by the respective communities of users who use the respective sub-portions of the respective spaces.
Incidentally, in one embodiment, when a user requests to view on his/her screen a map of a specified subregion of topic space (or of any similarly structured other system-maintained space), one of the options is to view the space in a 3-dimensional fashion similar to that shown in FIG. 3R (or better yet in next-described FIG. 3S) wherein cylindrical branch spaces like 30R.10 are shown as 3-dimensional cylindrical, but semitransparent (e.g., translucent) constructs, wherein conical branch spaces like 30R.40 are shown as 3-dimensional conical, but semitransparent constructs, wherein the clustered nodes within each branch space are shown as spherical nodes (or other 3D geometric objects) placed appropriately within their respective branch spaces; and wherein logical links or innervations (e.g., 30R.7 b) are also shown as semitransparent and fiber-like constructs that can be traced along to reach the nodes (e.g., 30R.6) of other external CARS or branch spaces (e.g., 30R.5) to which they interconnect.
The chat rooms or other forums that tether to the respective topic nodes (or other space nodes) may be depicted as orbiting cubes (or as other shaped 3D geometric objects, e.g., orbiting space satellites). A display control tool may be provided for hiding one or more different types of such objects or changing their relative sizes, etc. In one version, the relative sizes of sibling objects (e.g., nodes and/or chat rooms) indicate in a relative sense how many system users are or have recently utilized those resources. Hence a topic node that has a relatively large population of users engaged with its informational resources will appear as a large planet (and/or as a more fully colored rather than ghostly planet) while a chat room with a relatively small number of active participants will appear as a comparatively small orbiting satellite (and/or as a more translucent and less colored globe) disposed next to another, more populated forum orbiting the same node (e.g., depicted as a spherical planet).
Color codings may additionally be provided for indicating additional attributes, such as for example if a mapping is of dimensionality greater than 3 and the colors represent placement in a fourth or higher dimension. The display control tool (not shown) may be used to alter the default assignment of color codes. Some colors (e.g., red, pink and blue) may be reserved for showing which 3-dimensional objects or subregions are receiving above threshold heat, unusually large values of heat and/or which are abnormally cold. The user is given the ability to zoom in or out on a magnification gradient so that patterns of unusual heat or abnormal coldness can be visually spotted. In one embodiment, the provided color codings include ones for indicating strength of repulsing or attracting forces (pushes and pulls) as between clustering or outcast sibling nodes and/or as between the parent node and upward or downward moved sibling nodes. Lines of attraction or repulsion can be automatically drawn between selected ones of displayed nodes where the color codes (and/or line thickness) indicate attraction versus repulsion and the strength of each. In one embodiment, the chat room or other forums that are optionally displayed as orbiting their tethered-to topic nodes may also be displayed as clustering with one or more if their governance bodies vote for spatially attracting those sibling forums or as distanced from one another if their governance bodies vote for spatially repelling those sibling forums. Respective lines of attraction or repulsion and their strengths may be similarly displayed for the forums as they are for clustered together or repulsed apart nodes.
In one embodiment, as an alternative to, or as a supplementing addition to displaying points, nodes or subregions of Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces and/or their associated chat or other forum participation sessions with aid of color coding and/or line thickness/pattern coding for representing various attributes of the displayed objects, the system may provide sound effects for audibly indicating various node or forum attributes. One of the audibly indicated attributes can be that representing the volume (number of) and/or intensity (e.g., hotness) of discourses taking place for respective nodes, subregions or forum. This can be in the form of different kinds of musical pieces representing collective mood or even a montage of text-converted-to-voice transcripts from selected rooms. In one embodiment, the user hears the audibly indicated attributes when hovering a cursor representing virtual object (or the user's finger) over a displayed representation of the node, forum or over a collection of such graphically represented objects.
In one embodiment and as a supplementing addition to displaying points, nodes or subregions of Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces and/or their associated chat or other forum participation sessions, the presentation also depicts the cognitive-sense-representing clustering center points and their respective hierarchical and/or spatial positionings in the respective space.
Referring next to FIG. 3S, a more complete and more practical depiction 30S of system operations has a first set of Inter-Space cross-associating links 30S.7 (a.k.a. IoS-CAX's) formed between a child topic node such as 30S.9 a (a.k.a. CSiTn1) and points, nodes or subregions within a hybrid Context-and-Other space 30S.5; where in the illustrated example the “Other” is URL's 30S.72. In other words, there can be one or more hybrid clusterings of URL clusters (or singlets) and context clusters (or singlets) that are logically linked by means of the stored data signals representing IoS-CAX 30S.7 to corresponding topic node 30S.9 a of cylindrical branch space 30S.10. Accordingly, when a first user (e.g., User_A? in FIG. 3S, a.k.a. the one occupying context PXA) is in a corresponding first and individualized context, PXA (which stands for Private conteXt A) and that first user is currently focusing-upon sub-portions of content fetched from a respective first URL (e.g., www.URLa.com/PXA) while a second user (e.g., User_B? in FIG. 3S, a.k.a. the one occupying context PXB) is in a corresponding second, individualized and different context, PXB (which stands for Private conteXt number B) and that second user is currently focusing-upon sub-portions of content fetched from a respective second and different URL (e.g., www.URLb.com/PXB), it is possible that there will some form of sufficiently overlapping commonality between the specific and different contexts, PXA, PXB of the two users (e.g., they are both Fifth Grade Students, although in different schools and under different teachers) and some form of sufficiently overlapping commonality between the specific and different focused-upon sub-portions of content fetched from the respective URL's such that it can be automatically determined by the STAN—3 system and to a relatively high degree of confidence that the first and second users (User_A and User_B) are currently focusing-upon a same topic, where that topic is represented at least by topic node 30S.9 a (a.k.a. 30S.9 a?) in FIG. 3S.
More specifically for FIG. 3S, the different, first and second URL's (e.g., www.URLa.com/PXA and www.URLb.com/PXB, not explicitly shown) may be respectively represented by clustered together URL-representing expressions 30S.75 a and 30S.75 b where the latter, URL-representing expressions are stored as spatially or logically (e.g., hierarchically) clustered together nodes in a system-maintained URL's space 30S.72. Those two, clustered-together URL expression nodes, 30S.75 a and 30S.75 b may, as a cluster, point to many other points, nodes or subregions in many other Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces. However, when logically conjoined with a context node (not shown, but understood to be inside space 30S.2—shown to the right of branch space 30S.10) where that communally created and communally defined context node cross-correlates strongly with both of the private contexts, PXA and PXB, of respective users A and B, those two URL expressions (30S.75 a and 30S.75 b) point strongly to topic node 30S.9 a (a.k.a. CSiTn1) inside the illustrated cylindrical branch space 30S.10.
In view of the above, a machine-implemented method may be provided for automatically bringing the first and second users (A? and B?) into a same chat room 30S.60 (shown disposed in FIG. 3S between PXA and PXB), where the chat-type forum session 30S.60 is tethered to topic node 30S.9 a of cylindrical branch space 30S.10 (where the tethering is represented by the anchor disposed in FIG. 3S adjacent to cylindrical branch space 30S.10) and where the method includes one or more of the following steps:
*
o 1) empowering each of users A? and B? and/or empowering the respective smartphones (e.g., 30S.00) of the users to functionally interact with the STAN—3 system core (e.g., the cloud) so as to do one or more of the following things:
o 2) automatically causing a repeated uploading (or in-loading) to the STAN—3 system core of reporting signals that are indicative of respective physical contexts (XP) of the respective users, of probable mental contexts of the respective users, and of probable attention giving activities of the respective users, where the STAN—3 system core receives and recognizes those uploaded signals as belonging to registered and validly logged-in, respective users A? and B?;
o 3) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to repeatedly locate in a system-maintained context space 30S.2, one or more context representing nodes or subregions that most strongly cross-correlate to both of the private contexts, PXA and PXB, of respective users A? and B?;
o 4) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to repeatedly locate in a system-maintained URL's space 30S.72, one or more URL's-commonality nodes or subregions that most strongly cross-correlate with a common attribute (e.g., cognitive sense) of both of the focused-upon content sub-portions of the different and respective URL's (e.g., www.URLa.com/PXA and PXBwww.URLb.com/PXB) that the users A? and B? are respectively focusing-upon;
o 5) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to repeatedly locate in a system-maintained hybrid space 30S.5, a hybrid node or subregion that cross links logically and strongly with the located node(s) in URL's space 30S.72 and with the located node(s) in context space 30S.2;
o 6) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to trace from the located hybrid context-and-URL's node to, and thus identify a topic node 30S.9 a in the system-maintained topic space, where optionally the topic node 30S.9 a also well cross-correlates with chat co-compatibility requirements or desires of the two users (A? and B?);
o 7) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to spawn or identify an online chat room 30S.60 which is tethered to the identified topic node 30S.9 a;
o 8) automatically causing the STAN—3 system core to invite, by way of invitation signals sent back to the smartphones (30S.00, and/or other local data processing devices) of the respective users, where the invitation signals define respective invitations to join into the spawned or identified chat room 30S.60; and
o 9) automatically enabling the users, A and B, to chat online with one another and/or with other, similarly situated and similarly empowered users of the STAN—3 system by way of the spawned/identified chat room 30S.60.
As is in the case of FIG. 3R, FIG. 3S also shows the first and second users, A and B, as being relatively small in terms of the local data processing functionalities they have in their immediate physical possession as a result of having smartphones or the like where the latter are compared to the remote data processing capabilities and functionalities provided by the STAN—3 system core (SS3 core, e.g., the cloud). However, because the smartphones (e.g., 30S.00) of the respective users are each provided with empowerment to operatively interact with the SS3 core (e.g., by having appropriate interaction software pre-loaded into the smartphones) and because the users, A? and B?, are also or alternatively each provided with empowerment to operatively interact with the SS3 core (e.g., by having appropriate registration and/or log-in of the respective users take place so that the SS3 core recognizes the users and respective local devices that monitor the recognized users), the users gain access to the CFi's uploading and analyzing capabilities of the functionally more powerful SS3 core and they gain access to the invitations providing (e.g., invitations downloading) capabilities of the SS3 core (and/or to other informational resource providing functionalities of the SS3 core). In FIG. 3S, the user and device empowerment aspect (empowerment to interact with the SS3 core) is represented by empowerment and recognition portal 30S.73. The user CFi's and like uploaded and state reporting signals are represented by arrow 30S.75 which passes such uploaded and core-recognized signals through the empowerment and recognition enabling portal 30S.73. The responsively returned signals representing invitations to on-topic chat or other forum participation opportunities are represented by return arrow 30S.71, where the responsively returned signals 30S.71 may additionally or alternatively include other feedback informational resource signals representing other kinds of informational resources that strongly cross-correlate within the system to the attention giving energies which that SS3 core automatically determined that the respective users are likely to be now (or recently) casting on system-identified points, nodes or subregions (or cognitive-sense-representing clustering center points) of various Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces (CARSs) maintained by the system.
As an aside, it is to be understood that the CARSs maintained by the system can constantly change in numbers and types and neuroplastic like cross-connections as between one another's points, nodes or subregions (and/or cognitive-sense-representing clustering center points) so as to adapt to changing cognitions and cognitive sentiments of the user population. More specifically, cognitions that did not exist before can come into being while others fade into disuse and the system's users can start populating the system's topic space with new topic nodes and/or topic space regions (TSR's) that represent the newer cognitions as well as creating new Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces that have new points, nodes or subregions that innervate with (logically link with) and thus cross-correlate with corresponding new topic nodes or topic subregions or nodes in other pre-created and system-maintained spaces. As an example, imagine with reference to FIG. 3S that users A and B are invited into, and enter into a no-specific-topic chat room (e.g., 30S.62 which is initially tethered to null-topic node 30S.55) based on their personhood co-compatibilities rather than on any specific keywords, URL's or the like that might link them to a specific topic node. In such a case, that no-specific-topic chat room (e.g., 30S.62) is automatically associated by the system with a no-specific-topic, top catch-all node (a.k.a. null-topic node) 30S.55 in the system-maintained topic space. That topic space has a root node 30S.59 (also the root of the universal and hierarchical “A”-tree of the system topic space) to which all other hierarchical topic nodes ultimately link. Another top level topic node directly under the root node may be a system-operators' controlled, top topic domains node 30S.57 to which all user-created topic nodes must attach as children. Topic nodes (not shown) directly under this top topic domains node 30S.57 may be ubiquitously named as Topics Zone 100, Topics Zone 200, etc. and it is generally left to the user population to define what sub-topics fit as children under each such ubiquitous zone, although there may be exceptions where the system-operators can force certain types of topics (and/or certain cognitive-sense-representing clustering center points) to reside inside of certain pre-specified zones (e.g., topics that may be offensive to, or inappropriate for certain subsets of the user population—i.e., minors).
Assume next, that while aimlessly chatting within the exemplary, no-specific-topic chat room (e.g., 30S.62), users A and B conjure up a new topic that has not existed before (has not been predefined before. at least in the terms used by users A and B) within the system-maintained topic space (whose root is node 30S.59). Assume that users A and B start throwing out proposed keywords or URL's to each other respecting the new but un-named, not-yet-specified topic. (They don't have to know that this is what they are doing, that they are negotiating the question of, What are we talking about or What one or more topics is our discussion circling around?. They merely do it. An example may be as follows: UserA writes to userB: “What do you think about what is said at www.URLa.com/PXA?”.) At first they don't have a good grasp of what those proposed keywords, URL's fully mean or how the dots may interconnect because they don't have a good grasp of what the new topic is, what cross-correlates strongly to it and what does not. However, while they are transmitting trial keywords, URL's and the like to each other, the STAN—3 system automatically responds to whatever single keywords or clusters of keywords (or URL's or other codings) they toss out at each other by having the system core (the SS3 core) automatically send invitations to each of the users regarding possible chat or other forum participation opportunities that relate to the keyword clusters and/or URL clusters the respective two users (A and B) have tried thus far. Those invitations may include ones for merging their private two-user online chat (and null-topic thus far chat) with non-private ones of other users where the cross-matched other chat or other forum participation sessions may already have topic nodes cross-associated with them. Eventually in this example, let it be assumed that the two users, A and B privately converge on the keyword combination of: “neuroplasticity of the STAN—3 system” while electing to not yet merge with other chats proposed by the SS3 core. The two users, A and B may have converged on this exemplary keyword combination (“neuroplasticity of the STAN—3 system”) because they eventually realized, after much research that such best describes the new concept they had been circling around and reaching for but could not earlier clearly articulate it with words. However, at this point their private two-user online chat is still tethered to (cross-associated with) the top catch-all node 30S.55 (a.k.a. null-topic node) in the system-maintained topic space. This is so because users A and B are the exclusive controlling governance body of their nascent chat room (30S.61) and they have not yet voted (implicitly or explicitly) to move their chat room from its initial attachment (tethering, anchoring) to another node within topic space. Movement is at their discretion. If they do decide by implicit or explicit voting to move their chat room's tethering (anchoring) to a different node in topic space, they may eventually also decide by implicit or explicit voting to create a node in topic space that did not exist before and further move their chat room's tethering to that newly-created topic node.
In one embodiment, the system automatically and repeatedly transmits suggestions to the room governance body (in this case users A and B) to move their null-topic forum to a different location within the system-maintained topic space and/or to merge it with another forum that the system has determined is one whose topic is substantially similar or same to theirs. In this example however, the users, A and B, have not accepted such automatically presented suggestions because they believe that they have not yet settled on an acceptable definition of what their private topic is. Ultimately in this hypothetical example they decide on the topic definition being: “Nonbiological Neuroplasticity of Social-Topical Adaptive Networks”, but there is no such topic node pre-existing (in this hypothetical example) inside the STAN—3 system at that time. While the system keeps automatically suggesting to them where to move their chat, they decide to instead create their own unique topic node (not shown) and to first to tether it (the newly created topic node) to a Zone-3 child (a hypothetical subregion) of a ubiquitous zones node 30S.57. Later they decide to also or instead to tether their chat room to parent node 30S.30 of FIG. 3S. Their still-on-the-move and/or multi-tethered chat room is now denoted as 30S.61 in FIG. 3S. Because it is tethered to plural topic nodes with equally shared strengths of anchoring (or it could be viewed as orbiting both topic nodes with equally strong gravitational attraction to the orbited bodies) rather than it being primarily tethered at this time to just one node, that multi-tethered chat room is deemed to be a continuously-drifting or orbiting chat room that orbits/drifts (orbit represented by 30S.63) between a number of possible landing spots (final anchoring spots). In some cases, a chat room may never settle in on one topic node as being its exclusive topic node and the chat (or other forum participation session) may continue to fly around topic space while temporarily attaching to one or more and varying topic nodes.
In this example, the parent node 30S.30 to which users A and B decided to partially tether their co-governed chat room, is a hierarchical child of grandparent node 30S.50. Therefore in this example, the governance bodies who control grandparent node 30S.50 decide during the interim to move it (and all its child nodes contained in its branch space 30S.40) to a new location within the system-maintained topic space. While it and its progeny are thus in transit, the grandparent node 30S.50 and all the progeny nodes in its hierarchically subsumed branch space 30S.40 are denoted in FIG. 3S as a drifting combination 30S.53 of a top node (e.g., 30S.50) and progeny nodes (e.g., 30S.30, 30S.9 a, 9 b, 9 c, etc.). When the drifting combination 30S.53 moves, the so-called, orbit 30S.63 of the partially-tethered chat room 30S.61 shifts with it. In one embodiment, the various driftings of the nodes belonging to drifting combination 30S.53 are recorded in a machine-retained migration history file of database 30S.54. When the drifting grandparent node 30S.50? finally has its to-parent link 30S.51 tied to a corresponding great grandparent node (not shown), the drifting combination 30S.53 becomes a settled-in combination; which in FIG. 3S is assumed to include grandparent node 30S.50, parent node 30S.30 and children nodes 30S.9 a-9 c.
Later in the exemplary drift-of-topic process, the co-governing users A and B of the drifting chat room 30S.61 decide to more fixedly (but not necessarily permanently) anchor their chat room (now denoted as CR 30S.60) to the specific topic node denoted as 30S.9 a in FIG. 3S where the latter is spatially located within cylindrical branch space 30S.10 and is hierarchically a child of parent node 30S.30. The flying wings of this now-parked room 30S.60 are schematically illustrated in FIG. 3S as being X-ed out or temporary clipped for this case. Due to space constraints in the drawing, the tether of room 30S.60 is shown anchored to the branch space 30S.10 generally rather than to topic node 30S.9 a specifically. However, the two users are depicted thereat as users A? and B? who are making discoursive connection with one another by way of their respective smartphones (e.g., 30S.00) and by way of the topic node 30S.9 a? to which their parked chat room 30S.60 now predominantly tethers.
At this stage, users A? and B? also form the governance body for their previously brand new and then drifted and now re-planted topic node 30S.9 a. This topic node has drifted together with their flying chat room 30S.61 as they voted to keep drifting both of their controlled chat room and co-controlled topic node out of a first branch space (not explicitly shown, see 30S.49?) and ultimately into the illustrated branch space 30S.10 of parent node 30S.30. Also at this stage, users A? and B? may vote for designating URL expressions 30S.75 a and 30S.75 b as being the most representative URL's for the new topic they conjured up and are now discussing online. As the still exclusive governance body of their newly-located topic node and chat room, they may also vote to approve the topic specification of “Nonbiological Neuroplasticity of Social-Topical Adaptive Networks” as being the short-form textual descriptor of their created and re-parked node 30S.9 a and they may at the same time vote to approve the following keywords as being the most representative or top keywords for their node: “Neuroplastic Social-Topical Adaptive Network” and “Nonbiological Neuroplasticity”. They may open up their so modified and previously private chat room for entry by other system users who are interested in joining based on any of possible bases for co-compatibility with topic node 30S.9 a, including but not limited to, use of same or similar keywords, use of same or similar URL's, having same or similar normalized contexts, and/or having same or similar other normalized cognitions.
As new system users learn of its existence and join in on the earlier created and now implanted topic node 30S.9 a by way of (for example) accepting system generated invitations to a one or more chat rooms (e.g., 30S.60) or other forums that tether to topic node 30S.9 a, governance of this topic node 30S.9 a and/or governance of the forums tethered to it may change for any of a number of reasons including the possibility that the original birthers (founding fathers, A? and B?) of that topic node 30S.9 a and/or of its first chat room 30S.60 have dropped away and have let others take control. The new governance bodies of the earlier-implanted topic node 30S.9 a and/or the forums (e.g., 30S.60) tethered to it may vote to change its attributes yet further (e.g., top URL's, top keywords, top other cross-associated cognitions, etc.) and perhaps even to move it to a yet different location in topic space. Thus, a topic that may have not earlier existed in topic space (e.g., the “Nonbiological Neuroplasticity of Social-Topical Adaptive Networks” node) is created in the form of a new topic node (e.g., 30S.9 a) implanted into a first branch space (e.g., 30S.10) and is provided with changeable IntEr-Space cross-associating links (e.g., IoS-CAX's) from it to other Cognitive Attention Receiving Spaces (e.g., URL's space 30S.72; hybrid space 30S.5; other hybrid space 30S.1). The location of the created topic node (e.g., 30S.9 a) in topic space and the innervations or cross-associations between that node and nodes of other spaces may change over time due to user actions (e.g., implicit or explicit vote castings). In other words, a machine-implemented and neuroplastic wise adaptable combination of cognition representing nodes (representing communally-agreed upon expressions of respective cognitive senses) and nerve-connection representing logical links (IoS-CAX's and InS-CAX's) is formed and modified over time in response to implicit or explicit votes cast by node and forum governing bodies where the governance bodies are typically constituted by plural system users and thus re-adaptation decisions are typically reached on a communal consensus basis or majority rule basis rather than on the basis of the idiosyncratic whims of a single user.
FIG. 3S includes some summations of concepts presented here. Among these are that two or more users have smartphones or other such devices for inter-coupling with one another while the SS3 core serves as a mediating coupling means. This aspect is represented by as inter-coupled communicative links concept 30S.70 in FIG. 3S.
Additionally, FIG. 3S illustrates the concept of shared common codings or meta-expressions/meta-codings (e.g., mutually agreed to, common keywords for a given cognition). While not explicitly shown in FIG. 3S, it is to be understood that users A and B somehow negotiated a common language (e.g., American English) as the one to be used as the standardized or meta language for their co-governed chat room 30S.60 and/or for their co-governed topic node 30S.9 a. They also inherently agreed to a common or normalized context that is to serve as a meta-context common to their respective private contexts, PXA and PXB. They also inherently agreed to a common time duration in which their discourse takes place because their chat room 30S.60 has real-time chatting (e.g., instant messaging) as its pre-defined discourse style. There may also be shared geographic commonalities if the two users, A and B, had pre-specified in their chat co-compatibility profiles (not shown) that they wish to only have discourse with other users who in real life (ReL) are located within, say 500 miles of where they are physically located. (Closeness of location may alternatively or additionally be specified in virtual life.) In addition to having same or similar keywords, URL's or other such uploaded and normalized textual CFi's, the users may have other, non-textual cognitions in common with each other, such as, but not limited to, same or similar music streams or other sounds, same or similar taste-defining streams or other such sensory defining streams, same or similar friendship circles, same or similar admiration circles (e.g., who they follow by way of Twitter™ or by way of alike other admiration/followership mechanisms), by having same or similar general areas of interest, and so on.
Referring to FIGS. 3Ta-3Tb, shown here is one possible data structure 30T.0 for defining topic space primitive objects (TPO's) where the primitive objects can be points, nodes or subregions in topic space. The default is a non-root and non-leaf, hierarchical node in a hierarchical/spatial topic space, meaning that the exemplary TPO 30T.0 represents a node (e.g., 30S.9 c of FIG. 3S) in topic space that is a child of a corresponding parent node (e.g., 30S.30) and which child node has children of its own and also has a spatial location in the branch space (e.g., 30S.10 of FIG. 3S) of its parent node. The represented node may also have interrelations (e.g., spatial close clustering) with same level siblings (e.g., 30S.9 a,9 b) of the branch space and/or interrelations with (e.g., repulsed distancing from) siblings (e.g., 30S.77) in other levels of the branch space. Additionally, aside from the universal hierarchical “A”-Tree which it must belong to, the represented topic node may belong to hierarchical or non-hierarchical other trees (e.g., “B”-Tree, “C”-Tree, etc.; as will be explained for 30T.2) which are generally non-universal and do not necessarily support spatial placements of nodes on their respective branches. Note that the example of branch space 30R.10 of FIG. 3R is but one of many possibilities where in that exemplary possibility the hierarchal branch (from which the children of parent node 30R.30 depend) defines a cylindrical branch space; although alternatively it could have defined a disc shaped 2D space or a line-shaped 1D space or spaces with dimensions in between (e.g., two or more crossing lines each with enumerated points there along) or it could have defined spaces of higher dimensionalities. The possible configurations of the branch space may include torroids, spheres, concentric spherical shells, concentric donuts or concentric cylindrical shells and so on. As was explained in the case of FIG. 3R, spatial placement within a parent's branch space may indicate how the given node (e.g., 30R.9 c) places or clusters closely or repulsively far away relative to other sibling nodes within that branch space.