[ba-ohs-talk] Principles and Learning KM
John, (01)
Thanks for the pointer to Bob Wilensky's important work at UCB,
shown in your letter today. (02)
I have done a fair amount of review and analysis already, which
lead to SDS. For example, on 890523 issues on flexible structure
were reviewed.... (03)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/89/05/23/065052.HTM#P13O (04)
On 900303 connectionist theory in cognitive science was reviewed
in relation to building knowledge through "stories".... (05)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/90/03/03/221844.HTM#3016 (06)
On 900319 reviewed cognitive science in relation to the role of
time in understanding human memory and the process of
constructing causation.... (07)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/90/03/19/213447.HTM#1323 (08)
Won't list it all, but there is a considerable body of research
that underlies the design of SDS, which is summarized in POIMS,
NWO, etc. SDS enables pulling this research into a coherent
report in about 10 seconds covering some 15 years. SDS enables
assembling several hundred primary views and thousands of
subsidiary views that place research in useful contexts. From
what I can see of the main headings in your letter, Bob's class
on library management addresses this objective. (09)
On 001130 Jack Park wrote a letter to the group saying roughly
that SDS has the right structure for knowledge and the interface
that makes the structure useful for people.... (010)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/11/30/193621.HTM#H17O (011)
So far as I know, there is nothing else available that does
this. Jack has done a lot of research, and he has not mentioned
anything else. (012)
Apart from Jack's generous comments, there is a body of SDS
records demonstrating that SDS enables a routine intelligence
process for converting information into knowledge, explained in
POIMS. Under Drucker's criteria in his article on 991025,
"routinizing" the application of cognitive science through
technology, like SDS does, is a useful solution. (013)
As you and Eric Armstrong point out, SDS takes more than 20
minutes to learn, which is understandably discouraging, as
reported on 890809.... (014)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/89/08/09/210337.HTM#5U6K (015)
People have difficulty moving from IT to a new way of working
with SDS that integrates a whole range of tasks, because, in the
beginning, transformation seems overwhelming.... (016)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/89/08/09/214314.HTM#6162 (017)
...but is none-the-less essential to augment intelligence for
saving time and money and lives. Bill Gates seems to agree,
pointing out on 011108 that he is working at Microsoft on
integration so that people can use more than 5% of the commands
he has come up with over the past 20 years, which studies
indicate is about what most people are using now.... (018)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/02/11/08/084723.HTM#EFBE (019)
In any case, this is a side issue relative to your suggestion for
me to look at some links. Since I am a proponent of links and
crashed on opening links in your letter today, there is a burden
to attempt an explanation that reconciles the disparity between
offering links and not opening other folks links. (020)
First, I clicked on a couple of links in your letter, maybe all
of them. These turned out to be more Powerpoint presentations.
Limitations of Powerpoint for doing knowledge work were explained
in a letter several days ago. At that time, despite limitations,
I bit the bullet and spent a couple of three hours or so
analyzing the material you cited on MyLiftBits. The only reason
I did that was to demonstrate what "analysis" means. Some months
ago Jack suggested using "constructivist" methods, rather than
hammer away trying to be instructivist.... (021)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/02/09/24/110735.HTM#RN8L (022)
I thought possibly demonstrating how to do "analysis" by taking
specific language in source material and placing it the context
of objectives, requirements and commitments, and then listing out
relevant experience and commenting on correlations, implications
and nuance, as shown by the few examples listed above, that this
effort would be less instructivist and get closer to Jack's
suggestion. (023)
The question of whether to invest time for anything always
entails a cost benefit consideration. Where people are just
learning because nothing that has been tried so far has worked,
Bob's class might be useful. However, there is a different
calculus where there is a system in place. In this latter case,
the core issue with respect to investing time for reviewing Bob's
work at Cal is whether there is available work product
demonstrating that anything he may present can advance the work
already performed. This places a threshold burden on people
recommending new material to show relevance and potential for
improvement. As an example, USACE reported that SDS implements
Com Metrics that saves time and money at the rate of 10:1, which
lines up pretty well with the general concept that knowledge is
more powerful than information. Your letter today would excite
interest, if it said that something in Bob's class can reasonably
be expected to increase the return to 12:1 or 15:1, etc. Another
issue that would be attractive is that Bob's class will help
people grasp the power of deferred rewards, or overcome fear of
accountability, or laziness, which Jack cited on 010908 as
restraining transition to a new way of working. If there is
evidence that Bob knows anything about these big ticket issues,
then that should be presented to support investing time for me to
make the review you are proposing (024)
This is nothing new. Recall that Eric Armstrong raised this issue
on 011003. At that time, Eric requested guidance on when to go
off and invest time clicking on a link to something or other.
One criteria proposed is demonstrating some preliminary alignment
with objectives, requirements and commitments. Another criteria
is analysis showing that people can save time and money and lives
by implementation to replace or supplement whatever is being done
currently.... (025)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/10/03/160603.HTM#M16F (026)
These criteria suggest focusing research on things that have a
demonstrated track record, under the general rule to: study what
works. Recall Jack raised this idea on 000504, and worried that
for some reason there is reluctance to make that study. This
leads to the proposition that transformation from information to
a culture of knowledge begins with study and ultimately requires
opportunity to gain experience using a new way of working that
integrates the gift of time with the power of knowledge. (027)
Rod (028)
**************** (029)
> "John J. Deneen" wrote:
>
> Rod,
>
> Prof. Robert Wilensky, at UC Berkeley teachs a class in
> Digital Library Resources as a Basis for Collaborative Work
> Here is an overview of the current project and a Clustering
> demo relative to the important history of "The Fine Arts"
> Kobus's official demo (in PowerPoint), including more details
> about the capabilities of the Multivalent Doument Browser:
>
> RESIDU
> Multivalent
> Robust Hyperlinks
> Robust Locations
> CQF
> clustering
> shape
>
> Afer your review and analysis of the above links, may be there
> is an interest to audit and/or register for the class for
> "sharing the bootstrap" after analyzing, evaluating and
> comparing with SDS technology?
>
> Rod Welch wrote:
>
> > Jack,
> >
> > Good to hear people are learning principles and developing
> > use
> > cases. Who is teaching the class? Are there crib notes
> > available?
> >
> > Progress on RDF and topic maps is good news, spurred by your
> > book
> > and the bright minds engaging the problem who are now
> > seasoned by
> > experience the past few years.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > *******************
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> >
> >
> >> At 02:34 PM 3/8/2003, Rod Welch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Glad to see OHS/DKR coming to life as spring nears.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Rod,
> >>
> >> At the moment, ohs-talk is being used for precisely what it
> >> was intended:
> >> hammering out underlying principles, use cases, and so
> >> forth. Everyone
> >> here, myself included, is busy learning.
> >>
> >> The RDF topic, itself, is an important one and really needs
> >> lots of
> >> demonstrations in order to tease out the relative merits it
> >> brings to the
> >> implementation table. There are some really smart people
> >> playing with both
> >> RDF and topic maps. I think we are going to see some really
> >> powerful
> >> implementations spring to life pretty soon now.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
> >> Addison-Wesley. Jack Park, Editor. Sam Hunting, Technical
> >> Editor
> >>
> >> Build smarter kids globally to reduce the need for smarter
> >> bombs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > (030)