'taint "Location", 'tis CONTEXT

One of the fundamentals of interpersonal conversation is context: all of that shared information that frames and informs the conversation.

In this context, "Context" (sorry, I could not resist) is a big bucket of stuff. It includes shared history (do you remember when...), shared environment (oh! Look!), shared information (or the lack of shared information, and the reason that other person is not sharing), shared dreams and goals, and likely a large number of items that don't fit in the above list. In a meta sort of way it includes personal assumptions about what is shared and not shared, and what the interpretation of that sharing is.

Context also explicitly includes those things that are not shared. What feelings and thoughts are not part of the public domain surrounding the communication? In an interpersonal context this boils down to "what do they really mean?"

So enough context - where does this belong in a blog about telecommunications?

There are two thoughts circling my head that apply here. The first is that the context very seldom fits on the wire, and if it does, there are significant concerns with how well the context is delivered with integrity. The goal of telecommunicators is not yet done.

The other circling thought has to do with the nature of social media. I assert that the essential activity managing context is the sub-text of social media; the network of connectedness and the way in which it is executed, is all about establishing and sharing context. Following tweets of friends is not communication - it is preparing the context for future interpersonal communication. Reading and writing on walls is preparing the ground: investing in context, and understanding and sharing in the context of others.

Perhaps this can be harnessed in improving the effectiveness of machine-intermediated-communications. Or perhaps the true context for all this is simply a dream.

And to close the loop: Location IS context, just not ALL the context.