Are you saying in your letter this afternoon at 1408 that if Traction had
hierarchical structure this would have enabled analysis for effective
"intelligence," per examples in my letter earlier today at 1338, referencing
Traction work product at....
....and further in connection with your letter on 011031 at....
Can you flesh out a scenario, as you have done so often, to show how
hierarchical structure helps convert important information in your letter into
useful knowledge, and then use that showing to resolve worry in your letter on
00503 that this is too difficult to tackle? Sounds like we are making progress
on our question from 000120.
Recall research a few months later on 000307 by the OHS/DKR team explaining that
people are wired to think in through "stories".....
An example is the IBIS question from a popular movie from, 20 years ago or so,
"What's the story, Richie?"
Richie tells his story, and the old man asks...,
"Then what happened?"
Those are the three most popular words in all humanity. Let's repeat, "Then
what happened?" Why do people what to know "Then what happened?"
A big part of the answer has to do with your powerful point about "context."
A lot of people feel if they can get the story, plus the story before, and what
happened later, then they can use that context to decide what to do in order to
make the story turn out the way they want by inferring causation, and using that
knowledge to control the future by working to effect similar context. People
use "stories" to augment human reasoning, as explained on 900319....
...because people think through stories, as in "She went over the story in her
mind once again." People rarely go over the data in their mind, rather they
remember data and information through stories.
How would hierarchical structure in categories proposed in your letter today at
1408 help people produce better analysis that augments intelligence, where this
is taken to mean a clear, concise, complete story that aligns new data and
information with history, objectives, requirements and commitments?
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Rod Welch wrote:
> > ...the IBIS question of the day is why doesn't powerful category
> > capability in Traction enable better intelligence?
> Ah. From the standpoint of IBIS, what Traction is missing is good
> structuring. For lists, it's great. You can search on categories and
> make lists.
> But for a structured discussion, you are missing the kinds of
> relationships that say, "this is a repy to that".
> Note, too, that IBIS-style plus/minus categories are a function of the
> *relationship* (or context), not the node. So if I say,
> "bubble sort can be implemented quickly, but doesn't
> perform well for large sets of mostly-unordered data"
> that statement is neither a positive or a negative, on its own. It is
> a "knowledge nugget" that can be reused in a variety of contexts.
> But when I establish a context like one of the following:
> a) We need a sort for 10 or 15 items that the typical user will
> enter on our web site, and we need it yesterday.
> b) We need a sort for the 150,000 items in our database, that
> will operate nightly.
> Then the bubble-sort information above can be considered as a
> positive in one case, or a negative in the other.
> Traction had little in the way of hierarchical structuring, so you
> could create lists of options under design questions, and no
> ability to categorize the resulting relationships.
> However, they set the interface standard for how categories
> should operate.
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 16:07:06 PST