My friend Manya follows Austin Govella on Twitter. I know Austin by name, but have not yet had the pleasure of meeting in person. Recently Austin twittered one of those rhetorical questions that has had me pondering: "communities require shared conversation + shared memory. agree? disagree?"

I agree with the notion of shared communication. I wouldn't presume conversation, as that implies verbalization. A growling dog or cranky old man with a shotgun and "No Trespassing" sign are communicating, but neither are going to engage in conversation. And both can be part of a community.

I agree that a community develops shared memory, but I am not convinced that it is required. Complete strangers can live within a few blocks of one another and be defined as members of a community. They may not have shared memories; especially if they've lived in the neighborhood for different numbers of years. Agoraphobic or homebound individuals can be in a community but not choose or be unable to interact and share memories. New communities do not have shared memory. I would posit that community members in these conditions have shared points of reference. I have no doubt that communities have a steep adoption curve when it comes to shared memory for those who choose to participate.

For me, it all depends on how you define community. Does it imply sentience or sapience? Is it bounded by size or temporal constraints? Does it infer shared ownership or agreement on goals or purpose?

More rhetorical questions... I guess I could link to my preferred definition with some semantic web language, (!) but sometimes having the conversation is much more fun.