[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-ohs-talk] New backlink metadata; mhpurple v0.2 released

Eugene,    (01)

A few more comments on your comments....    (02)

Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Rod Welch wrote:
> > Glad to hear this.  Can you provide an example showing how addressability and
> > purple numbers are applied in email.  Do we see it in this correspondence, and
> > I am overlooking the obvious?
> Why don't you help me help you by telling me what exactly you don't
> understand about purple numbers?
> You may want to review Eric Armstrong's summary of a talk I gave on purple
> numbers a while back:
>   http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion/3462.html
> His e-mail includes a link to my slides.    (03)

Yesterday, you, or someone, sent a letter that included a link using purple
numbers that supported something or other.  This demonstrated that purple
numbers have important utility noted by California Supreme Court Justice Mosk on
911130....    (04)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/91/11/30/080020.HTM#ST7G    (05)

...see also at line 471591 commenting on "links."      (06)

Why then isn't this done more often, as Doug called out on 001017....    (07)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#L921502    (08)

...in light of the fact that context is critical to understanding and following
up to get things done, as Gil Regev pointed out on 001019....    (09)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/19/113945.HTM#IM5F    (010)

If context is useful for the court to decide on the efficacy of actions taken in
medical practice, business, government, the environment, etc., then why can't
people use purple numbers more ubiquitously to align the work, so that there are
fewer problems for the court to busy itself about?  Alphabet technology, for
example, lifts civilization because a lot of people use it a lot.  Why then do
we only see a use here and a use there for purple numbers, when Peter Drucker
says that productivity can be lifted by applying technology to cognitive
science, reviewed on 991025....    (011)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/10/25/211024.HTM#0785    (012)

....?    (013)

In other words, "useful" technology is technology that is used a lot. 
Accordingly, the challenge for purple numbers, as for Traction reviewed on
011102....    (014)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/11/02/083013.HTM#L920402    (015)

...is to expand application.  It isn't necessary to talk about it, just do it;
action speaks for itself.    (016)

> > As a result, mpurple could make KM faster and easier, depending on the mechanics
> > of accomplishing the tasks.  Can you point to a body of work product showing
> > where this has been applied that demonstrates folks can knock out a lot of stuff
> > using mpurple?
> There's nothing equivalent to SDS right now, if that's what you're asking.
> Otherwise, I've e-mailed a number of examples to this list on multiple
> occasions; if these are not what you're looking for, please clarify your
> request.    (017)

See comment above.    (018)

> > ....similar to Eric's specs reviewed on 000505; Nexist is a technology framework
> > for implementing and OHS/DKR-type system, and your work provides tools that are
> > needed for KM, which is the catch all phrase for what Jack and Lee are working
> > toward under the umbrella of Doug's vision for an OHS/DKR.  That is why I have
> > long urged you folks to join forces, i.e., to collaborate.  Why is it that
> > people ostensibly working on better collaboration don't seem to collaborate?
> > That is another KM dilemma for NSF to ponder? (an inside joke)
> I find this to be an incredibly naive statement, and I want to make this
> point clear to anyone else who may share Rod's sentiments here.
> 1. All of the experimental work I have done owes a tremendous debt to
> many, many people, especially Jack, Lee, and Eric (and of course Doug).
> That's called collaboration.  I'm sure many others in our loose-knit group
> would share similar sentiments.
> 2. That we are all not working on a single piece of software does not mean
> that we are not collaborating.  The OHS is about interoperability between
> many different applications.  Building the OHS means building a common
> infrastructure, which is more a question of standards development than it
> is software development.
> 3. That being said, standards development and software development are
> closely intertwined, and you can't have one without the other.  However,
> there is such a thing as premature standardization, and this would be the
> case with the OHS.  What is needed right now is experimentation with
> multiple implementations.
> This is what we have.  My favorite example of this is NODAL.  Many moons
> ago, Eric announced his KRNL project, an initial attempt at building a
> node library for a collaboration system:
>   http://www.treelight.com/software/collaboration/index.html
> The response on the list was underwhelming.  However, we know that at
> least one person looked at his stuff.  Several months later, Lee announced
> NODAL, and on numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to credit
> Eric's KRNL system as an intellectual predecessor.
> A lot of people have done a lot of cool work on this list.  TouchGraph is
> a great example, and it has found its way into Jack and Murray's work.
> Nexist, GSIX, Metaglom, and many other projects are other notable
> examples.  SDS too!
> Can we do a better job of collaborating?  Absolutely.  And we will.
> If anyone would like help understanding any of the topics discussed on
> this list, I'd be glad to oblige.  I'd encourage you all to ask these
> fundamental questions, rather than "urge" the group to do things based on
> incorrect assumptions.    (019)

A perspective that seems to be overlooked in Eugene's excellent explanation of
open source "collaboration" is the notion of complementary forces that advance
progress through the synergy of organization, direction and guidance that
enables people with limited talents to combine into a powerful force.  Paul
Fernhout provided support for Eugene's vision of "collaboration," in a letter on
000831 that described "termite" production methods.....    (020)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/08/31/171544.HTM#L311740    (021)

...where everybody does what they want and hope something useful emerges.    (022)

Grant Bowman seemed to endorse this interpretation of open source collaboration
in a letter on 001012....    (023)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/12/215154.HTM#B4P2    (024)

...however, Eric Armstrong was more cautious about the prospects of this
approach to collaboration making substantial progress, in his initial reaction
to Paul's "termite" concept....    (025)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/08/31/171544.HTM#L312302    (026)

The main thing missing, as I see it, and of course this is a limited view to be
sure, is lack of "collaboration" between people who know what needs to be done,
and people doing the coding.  It seems to be turning out that the focus and
energy required to do software coding creates blinders about what needs to be
coded, and the same is true for those figuring out what needs to be done.  This
is clearly a delicate matter, similar to the issue that comes up when people
decide to be their own project manager for building their own house.  Many
reason that because they are very good managers for this that or the other at
the office, they can equally manage a contract to build their own home.  It
generally doesn't work because objectivity and perspective cannot be mustered in
sufficient degree, much like the rule about a lawyer who represents himself has
a fool for a client.    (027)

Open source is a bunch of software programmers trying to figure out what to
program and also keeping up skills in Java, Perl, C++, XML, Zwiki, SOAP,
Windows, and on and on.  To repeat an earlier letter on this matter, Linux is a
model that seems very attractive, but is misleading.  Termite production has
worked somewhat with Linux (keeping in mind the report on 001130....    (028)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/11/01/173247.HTM#L392166    (029)

...citing overwhelming tendency to use bad management), because people have
enough experience with operating systems from daily interaction that individuals
can contribute haphazardly with some net positive effect.  Yet, even with Linux,
there is evidently some degree of leadership.      (030)

However, moving beyond wordprocessing, spreadsheets and pictures to augment
intelligence, as called out by Larry Ellison and discussed with Bill Gates on
970222....    (031)

http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/97/02/22/133607.HTM#L241657    (032)

....is an entirely different matter, because there is no model.  The model must
be constructed from experience across a range of disciplines: e.g., cognitive
science, management science and computer science, where management science
includes engineering and contract management, lessons from law, medical
practice, science, finance, journalism, etc.  By the time people gain sufficient
experience in these fields to be effective in formulating a composite solution,
their life is mostly over, and many have settled in to reap the rewards of
having achieved skills and standing.    (033)

The view of collaboration as complementary contributions may well be naive, as
Eugene maintains today.  Perhaps, Jack, or Eric, Murray, Lee, or Eugene himself,
will incorporate Purple numbers into a framework where it can be used routinely,
along with the other features needed for augmenting intelligence, as Drucker
calls out.  That will be a great day for all.  Right now, there is no indication
that the core issue Eric asked about on 000208 is being addressed.     (034)

Absent willingness to collaborate as set out in POIMS...    (035)

http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#K84L    (036)

...wider use of Purple Numbers will expand span of attention so that in time
awareness will eventually emerge of the larger objectives and integration
required to implement Doug's vision.  On the other hand, joining forces through
organization and cooperation to collaborate on complementary action can shorten
development from 50 - 100 years (just guessing), to perhaps 5 - 10 years.    (037)

Rod    (038)