[Bigbang-dev] Bipartite graphs of working group and affiliations

[Niels ten Oever]

I see no reason why not, people can then also improve it!

On 7/29/20 9:15 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
> Awesome. Thank you!
> 
> Since this file is quite small, I wonder if it would make sense to include it the BigBang repository itself.
> 
> Could you add it in a PR?
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 7:27 AM Niels ten Oever <mail at nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     Sorry it has taken this long. Please find the categorized list attached of everything that I could easily place. My biggest problem was to categorize Google because they seem to transcend categories, but if I would need to put it into one, it would be 'content provider'.
> 
>     Furthermore, I suggested quite a few entries to be merged.
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Niels
> 
>     On 6/9/20 7:19 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
>     > Thanks for this, Nick.
>     >
>     > That reminds me: I'm on the hook to get Nels a list of top 100 affiliations for categorization.
>     >
>     > This visualization is noting affiliations of draft authors only. Not general discussion participants. I'm not sure if the IETF data tracker has lighter weight documents in it that might pick up wider participation. Any ideas what those would be called? Are "comments" a tracked document type?
>     >
>     > One thing that *might* pop out of a more extensive mapping (longer time scale, etc) is some kind of modular structure to the network. It might *not* be there, an it could be one big hairball that doesn't tell us much. But I wonder if you would expect, based on qualitative experience and intuition, any clustering?
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 1:11 PM Nick Doty <npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu <mailto:npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu> <mailto:npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu <mailto:npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Awesome!
>     >
>     >     My initial thought was just that it seems so sparse. httpbis is a massive effort (based only on my dropping in to WG meetings occasionally, I haven’t been following the list), how can it only have 2 organizations involved? Maybe that’s a side effect of your using a short date range?
>     >
>     >     I also noticed the entity resolution issue (with Cisco).
>     >
>     >     One issue with connection working groups to companies is that it might become overly dense. When we did this just with individuals, there was already quite a bit of overlap/connection, with only occasional groups that were pushed to the outside of the diagram because many individuals on those lists only contributed to them. But with looking at entire companies, it seems more likely that you’ll see the large vendors connected to a wide range of WGs across multiple areas and so I’m not sure what the visualization will be able to show you.
>     >
>     >     Thanks for sharing this work in progress. I think affiliation can be such a promising area, particularly if we can start to classify the affiliations (corporate, non-profit, academic, etc.).
>     >
>     >     Cheers,
>     >     Nick
>     >
>     >     > On Jun 8, 2020, at 3:10 PM, Sebastian Benthall <sbenthall at gmail.com <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com> <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     > Hello,
>     >     >
>     >     > I've been working with the IETF data tracker to produce a visualization of affiliations and working groups. I'd like to run it by you all for design feedback and ideas moving forward.
>     >     >
>     >     > This is a bipartite graph of affiliations and working groups for the period between 2010-01-01 and 2010-04-01:
>     >     >
>     >     > <image.png>
>     >     > Aside from entity resolution issues (Juniper/Juniper Networks), I wonder if anything pops out at you or of the visualization might contain more information in a useful way.
>     >     >
>     >     > Cheers,
>     >     > Seb
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > Bigbang-dev mailing list
>     >     > Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net> <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net>>
>     >     > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Bigbang-dev mailing list
>     > Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net>
>     > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev
>     >
> 
>     -- 
>     Niels ten Oever
>     Researcher and PhD Candidate - DATACTIVE Research Group - University of Amsterdam
>     Postdoctoral Scholar (abd) - Communications Department - Texas A&M University
>     Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
>     Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
> 
>     W: https://nielstenoever.net
>     E: mail at nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail at nielstenoever.net>
>     T: @nielstenoever
>     P/S/WA: +31629051853
>     PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bigbang-dev mailing list
>     Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net>
>     https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate - DATACTIVE Research Group - University of Amsterdam
Postdoctoral Scholar (abd) - Communications Department - Texas A&M University
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: mail at nielstenoever.net
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3