Re: [unrev-II] Jack Park's "10 Step" Program

From: Jack Park (jackpark@verticalnet.com)
Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:36:42 PDT

  • Next message: altintdev@webtv.net: "Re: [unrev-II] XML at IBM..."

    From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
    >
    > Jack Park wrote:
    > >
    <snippage/>
    >You said that
    > you and Adam had played around with WBI and with Weblets. Would
    > either of you be prepared to do a small report on what you've
    > learned so far?
    >
    > More to the point: Summarizing the messages over the last 48-hours
    > leads me to believe that what the group (or at least the vocal
    > part of it) wants to do is table the existing agenda and devote
    > some time to exploring the WBI approach. In the process, Doug
    > should be derive whatever he needs for his trip to Washington.
    >
    > Can we identify those needs, and do we have any thoughts on the
    > best way to go about the investigation?
    >
    I can do a few preliminary slides on WBI that show the direction I think
    that architecture is going (assuming my health holds up). I would be
    interested in entertaining discussion on alternatives to WBI, especially in
    the event that it does not satisfy cross-platform requirements; the Windoz
    version I downloaded has a dll. Alternatives might include the XML compiler
    of Enhydra, DirectDom (weblets), and something new called JDom that will be
    introduced in a new Java/XML book from O'Reilly (coming soon, I hope).

    > > Remember, everything is supposed to draw from the original narrative.
    > > It should read something like the combined works of marketing (what the
    > > market thinks it wants), engineering (what folks think can be done), and
    > > vision (what folks want to get done)...
    > >
    > I like that concept very much. But it sounds like we need to defer
    > that focus until after the Washington trip? I happen to think that
    > focus is perfect, but that's not what I hear people demanding.
    >

    Perhaps the next meeting (tomorrow!) should focus on Doug's needs.

    > > Doug's Augment sets the stage. Rod Welch brings to the table an
    > > existence proof of concept for some aspects of a DKR. Visit his web
    > > site. David Gelernter (another visionary) has brought to the table
    > > another existence proof of concept (LifeStreams) which has some
    > > fundamental similarities to Rod's work. Doug Lenat has demonstrated
    > > existence proof of the concept of evolutionary epistemology (Eurisko),
    > > and VerticalNet, the company for which I work, is generating proof of
    > > the need for and value of ontological engineering (the study of what is)
    > > at the bottom of everything. And under that lies knowledge
    representation
    > > (Erics atomic structures)...
    > >
    > Yes, this does seem important for a DKR. But in terms of our focus:
    > Augmenting Open Source Development, isn't it premature to go that deep?
    > I thought our primary focus was OHS-related, avoiding deeper knowledge
    > issues, at least at the outset.
    >
    Interesting point. But then, if you focus the initial design on solving one
    problem, you risk painting yourself into a corner that forces redesign later
    on. I'm a "big picture" player, myself.

    > > Thusly, it seems to me that our job should be to revisit the
    > > narrative: mine this mailing list for gems and formulate a draft text.
    > > Mine Rod's web site, his technology white papers and so forth, mine
    > > Gelernter's work, look at Lenat's work, look around, and formulate a
    > > final narrative that everyone can agree adequately lays out the vision,
    > > the market, and the technology available to us.
    > >
    > Again, I agree with this. I would add the step of evaluating the
    > collaboration-projects currently in existence. That strikes me as the
    > right design path. At this point, you have made 4 suggestions for
    > the continuation:
    > 1) Pursue the WBI vector
    > 2) Follow an ISO 9000 path
    > 3) Follow a path based on Nancy Glock's Knowledge Representation talk
    > 4) Focus on building the narrative
    >
    > Which of these do you see as most important?
    >
    Great addition, evaluating existing stuff as part of the narrative. Which
    do I prefer? Well, I'm playing with WBI, so ruling that one out, I'd much
    prefer to build the narrative, since that's the first step in the other two.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your
    unique interests. eTour.com is surfing without searching.
    And, it's FREE!
    http://click.egroups.com/1/3013/3/_/444287/_/956785065/
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:45:21 PDT