From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 1 02:54:27 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 312EF56FD5; Wed, 1 May 2002 02:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B74E56FCE for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 02:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:09:59 +0100 Message-ID: <3CCFBEC0.9020905@open.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:09:04 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Keyword Indexing References: <20020430185527.4482C56FCE@bi0.bootstrap.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org blincoln wrote: >Murray Altheim wrote: >>since that is actually creating new words and phrases. A comma is >>pretty simple to type and is (in English) a _word_ or _phrase_delimiter_ > > A friend and I are working on a java-based keyword indexer at the moment and are > confronting a problem which it seems like must have been solved 10,000 > times already. It is a necessary requirement that the indexer be capable of > indexing highly technical words. Our area involves a lot of chemical notation > which includes commas _not_ as delimiters but as word-chars. Like: > > N,N-dimethyltryptamine or 3,4-methylpropylamine or others of the sort. > > They can get more complicated. We have not yet found any adequate solution > but if anyone knows of any keyword parsing / tokenizing rule sets that have > gone through some iterations in development, let me know. It seems like > the only real chance for tokenizing technical language properly must be > some sort of dictionary lookup? What a pain. A slight modification to my original proposal for this problem [nid09] could solve this: [urn:ohs:keys:chem: N,N-dimethyltryptamine ; 3,4-methylpropylamine] The idea is that rather than something so simple as "keys:" we would use a URN to identify the semantics and parsing rules of a specific scheme. The parsing rules for "urn:ohs:keys:" could be commas, for "urn:ohs:keys:chem:" could be something different, say, semicolons (or whatever suits) for each token, whitespace-trimmed at both end. There's no way to solve this IMO generally without creating a hierarchical namespace identifier under which each of these schemes operate. We could default "keys:" as a shortcut for "urn:ohs:keys:" (or whatever base URN we chose), and in fact, default various non- English equivalents to that same URN. With a topic map behind the engine it's not going to matter so long as the URNs of each point to the same subject. Absent topic maps, it's still only a table lookup, not too difficult. Murray [nid09] http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0204/msg00180.html#nid09 ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 4 05:38:31 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 024EA56FDD; Sat, 4 May 2002 05:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.71]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 437AA56FDC for ; Sat, 4 May 2002 05:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.136]) by tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020504125429.UDMK15716.tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 4 May 2002 08:54:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD3DA62.14FBD925@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 08:56:02 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS framework Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Came across a 1998 document outlining an OHS framework. Answers one of those FAQs. You may want to keep it for reference: http://www.fleabyte.org/morgue/alliance-980.htm Also, there is an evaluation of the WWW w.r.t. the above (by Daniel Connolly, dated 1998): http://www..w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-ioh-arch Henry - List archives available at http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 6 07:09:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3C71C56FDC; Mon, 6 May 2002 07:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F246556FD6 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020506142516.GZZT4412.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 14:25:16 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020506071924.02428500@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 07:22:51 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] MS Office Compatibility Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This article http://www.javaworld.com/javaqa/2002-05/01-qa-0503-excel3_p.html at javaworld.com on using the Apache POI project to read and write Excel files leads to http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/ which is the POI home page. What's interesting here is that POI is a system to read and write MS Ole 2 documents (Word, Excel) using Java. Combine POI with Multivalent and you're that much closer to a HyperScope. Interesting quote from the POI home page: "POI stands for Poor Obfuscation Implementation. Why would we name our project such a derogatory name? Well, Microsoft's OLE 2 Compound Document Format is a poorly conceived thing. It is essentially an archive structured much like the old DOS FAT filesystem. Redmond chose, instead of using tar, gzip, zip or arc, to invent their own archive format that does not provide any standard encryption or compression, is not very appendable and is prone to fragmentation. Poi is also a Hawaiian delicacy that Merriam Webster's dictionary defines as: "A Hawaiian food of taro root cooked, pounded, and kneaded to a paste and often allowed to ferment." This seemed strangely descriptive of the file format. " From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 8 09:56:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B571756FD6; Wed, 8 May 2002 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EC5A56FD5 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020508171239.UUBQ25294.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 17:12:39 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020508100913.0246d660@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:10:17 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Backlinks in Blogspace Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/webservices/2002/05/03/udell.html "The culture of blogspace is evolving in near-realtime. Last week, a new mutation brought backlinks into a more prominent role. At Disenchanted, inbound links were automatically reflected outward. Each article grew a tail of backlinks that pointed to pages referring back to it. Suddenly a new kind of feedback loop was created. With a twist of the lens, conversations that had been diffuse and indirect came sharply into focus. Almost immediately the meme replicated" From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 8 10:31:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CB9FC56FDC; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFD5C56FD6 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020508174725.SDCE10136.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 17:47:25 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020508104414.02334170@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:45:03 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] jDictionary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/jdictionary "jDictionary is a powerful multi-platform dictionary application. It features a nice GUI and an easy-to-use plugin management system, which is able to download and install plugins automagically from the Web. Apart from dictionary-related plugins, these can include speech synthesizer plugins which can be invoked by other plugins to pronounce words" From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 9 04:10:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 19A0556FD6; Thu, 9 May 2002 04:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D90156FD5 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 04:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:26:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3CDA5C9E.1070205@open.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:25:18 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Backlinks in Blogspace References: <4.2.2.20020508100913.0246d660@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/webservices/2002/05/03/udell.html > > "The culture of blogspace is evolving in near-realtime. Last week, a new > mutation brought backlinks into a more prominent role. At Disenchanted, > inbound links were automatically reflected outward. Each article grew a > tail of backlinks that pointed to pages referring back to it. Suddenly a > new kind of feedback loop was created. With a twist of the lens, > conversations that had been diffuse and indirect came sharply into > focus. Almost immediately the meme replicated" Seems funny, but unless I'm mistaken the whole idea of blogspace is what Steve Newcomb, Eliot Kimber and others argue for in the concepts of Hytime, such as groves and what became topic maps, all very interrelated. Had HTML not been so impoverished link-wise at the beginning (or perhaps had XLink came out very soon after XML) we might have seen these discussions several years ago since the ideas have been floating around for a long time. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 10 07:03:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D2FEC56FEC; Fri, 10 May 2002 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 271C556FEB for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 07:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 May 2002 15:19:13 +0100 Message-ID: <3CDBD6B1.6090509@open.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:18:25 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Augmented Metadata in XHTML References: <4.2.2.20020508100913.0246d660@thinkalong.com> <3CDA5C9E.1070205@open.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [I'm reposting a message I sent into the TM Published Subject TC list, as I think it may be of interest here.] ---------------------- original message ----------------------------- Mary Nishikawa wrote: [...] > I think that we can go back and take a look at what Murray proposed in > his "Augmented Metadata in xhtml" However, the link from our documents > page is broken, so I couldn't access the resource. It is really better > to have the metadata inline with the identifier, however, I worry about > the complexity and resources that it could create; if all the metadata > is in the header, it might be easier. It's really quite simple to obtain all elements in a document, regardless of where they are and whether you're using DOM, SAX, or JDOM APIs. I believe the added benefits of locating the metadata for an element as a child of that element outweigh the drawbacks. Management is certainly a lot easier (no links to maintain!). I've reposted the "Augmented Metadata in XHTML" draft on my own web site: http://www.altheim.com/specs/meta/NOTE-xhtml-augmeta.html > It would be good to get feedback from DCMI, Network Working Group. See > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in > HTML ( I don't mind contacting them if you want me to. The longer time has passed on that early idea the more I like it, and am beginning to think people could avoid a great deal of wasted work on the Semantic Web if this simple idea were adopted, rather than trying to develop some new markup language to be included in Web pages. Using the existing element is simple, backward compatible (ie., invisible) to existing web browsers, and doesn't require any further development or infrastructure change. It also avoids RDF, which I simply cannot believe "normal" Web authors to attempt to tackle. Dublin Core plus is really all one needs to augment Web pages. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 12 08:38:00 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BBC6256FF3; Sun, 12 May 2002 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E8C156FF2 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020512155405.WBUT25765.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 15:54:05 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020512083742.00dc9140@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 08:51:39 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky0.5/intro/fohm_desc ription.html (one of dozens of pages <~1030> when you google FOHM) Excerpts: "The Fundamental Open Hypertext Model (FOHM) [6] grew out of the Open Hypermedia Protocol (OHP) developed by the Open Hypermedia Systems Working Group (OHSWG) but it expands the OHP data model to describe a broader set of hypermedia "domains". FOHM also makes no assumptions about the protocol it is running over or the systems that are using it. It is a model for describing hypertext structures that requires binding to a syntax before it can be used" "In its work on interoperability, the OHSWG considered the requirements of several domains of hypertext. The three most frequently mentioned were Navigational, Spatial and Taxonomic Hypertext. The OHP protocol was always more concerned with Navigational Hypertext, however FOHM is capable of expressing all three domains. Before we can examine FOHM it is necessary to define these domains. Navigational Hypertext is the most traditional domain of hypertext, exemplified in Open Hypermedia Systems such as Chimera[1], DHM[3], HyperForm[11], Microcosm[2] and the HB/SP series[9]. Authors create Links between parts of documents that are related. Users can then click on those links to move between documents. Although Navigational Hypertext systems can be quite sophisticated, by far the most popular system, the World Wide Web, is also one of the simplest. Spatial Hypertext systems allow users to organise their information visually in a process known as "Information Triage"[5]. Relationships between nodes are expressed by their visual characteristics such as proximity, colour or shape. This results in visual collections, or Spaces, such as lists and sets. Spatial hypertext systems are therefore ideal for an evolving organisation of data. Examples of such systems include VIKI[4] and CAOS[8]. Taxonomic Hypertext is the organisation of information artifacts into Categories[7]. Where authors disagree about the categorisation, the Taxonomy can branch into different Perspectives[10]. Applications can allow users to navigate the information space by moving between overlapping Categories and can also reason about the relationships that artifacts have with one another. " "In FOHM we describe four first-class objects that are analogous to the objects in the OHP data model. Associations are structures that represent relationships between Data objects. These Data objects are wrappers for any piece of data that lies outside of the scope of the model. They normally represent a document although one could represent any file, stream or other item. It is exactly this feature that we shall use to make links between concepts and queries. Data objects are not directly placed in the Associations. Instead Reference objects are used, these either point at Data objects in their entirety or at parts of those Data objects, for example the second paragraph of a text document, or the second scene of a film. They are attached to the Association object via Bindings. Each Association also has a structure type and a feature space; each Binding must state its position in that feature space, effectively stating how it is bound to the Association's structure. " "Where the FOHM model differs from other open hypermedia models is in its placement of context at the heart of the information. Context is left as an opaque object within the FOHM model with the specifics being defined by the implementation. Context objects can be attached to all parts of the FOHM structure ..." "In addition to context, behaviour objects can also be attached to the different parts of the FOHM data structures. Like context objects, behaviour objects are also opaque. Unlike context objects however the implementation of the FOHM model is not required to understand the contents of the behaviour object..." Originally, according to the Hypertext 2001 proceedings, there was an implementation called "Auld Leaky." Now, it is known as "Auld Linky" http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky.shtml complete with downloads (it's Perl, I don't yet know the license). What's particularly curious (for me) is the resemblance to topic maps. It strikes me that their "contexts" are a topic map's "scopes", though topic maps don't do "behaviors." FOHM appears to be association-centric, while topic maps appear to be topic-centric. I'd really like to see what others think about FOHM. Cheers! Jack From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 12 09:42:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4FB9D56FF3; Sun, 12 May 2002 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.181]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4E4F56FF2 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-578.charmander.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.76.66] helo=vaio) by imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 176wgA-0006tb-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 12 May 2002 17:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c1f9d6$0aafde60$424c87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <4.2.2.20020512083742.00dc9140@thinkalong.com> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:56:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > What's particularly curious (for me) is the resemblance to topic maps. It > strikes me that their "contexts" are a topic map's "scopes", though topic > maps don't do "behaviors." FOHM appears to be association-centric, while > topic maps appear to be topic-centric. I'd agree with that. >From the FOHM description page it looks like most publication on FOHM stopped around the time HyTime '97 came out. But the last DTD published was http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dem/equator/eqfohm/definitions/fohm19-3-01.d td And Auld Linky seems to be continuing under the Equator workshops (see below). http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linkysoftware.shtml now at v.0.72 It's the project of David Millard, who is a Research Fellow in the same Univ. of Southampton dept. where a postgrad by the name of Graham D. Moore used to spend some time. http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/people_full_list.html Dr. Millard's main project seems to be the Equator workshops http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/projects/projects.shtml where Auld Linky is a project. Ask Graham? There are some interesting papers here too: http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/papers/papers.shtml Notably: On Hyperstructure and Musical Structure Accepted at HT02, Maryland, USA. Abstract : In this paper we report on an ongoing investigation into the relationship between musical structure and hyperstructure, based on a series of open hypermedia systems research projects that have featured case studies involving musical content. Drawing on these example systems, we consider techniques for building hyperstructure from musical structure and, conversely, building musical structure from hyperstructure. Additionally we describe an experiment in the sonification of hyperstructure. --Submitted in 2002. PDF download (but my browser crashed trying to download it so I haven't read it yet). Great minds think alike (a bit later on) Ask Steve Newcomb? -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Park" To: Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky0.5/intro/fohm_ description.html (one of dozens of pages <~1030> when you google FOHM) > > Excerpts: > "The Fundamental Open Hypertext Model (FOHM) [6] grew out of the Open > Hypermedia Protocol (OHP) developed by the Open Hypermedia Systems Working > Group (OHSWG) but it expands the OHP data model to describe a broader set > of hypermedia "domains". FOHM also makes no assumptions about the protocol > it is running over or the systems that are using it. It is a model for > describing hypertext structures that requires binding to a syntax before it > can be used" > > "In its work on interoperability, the OHSWG considered the requirements of > several domains of hypertext. The three most frequently mentioned were > Navigational, Spatial and Taxonomic Hypertext. The OHP protocol was always > more concerned with Navigational Hypertext, however FOHM is capable of > expressing all three domains. Before we can examine FOHM it is necessary to > define these domains. > Navigational Hypertext is the most traditional domain of hypertext, > exemplified in Open Hypermedia Systems such as Chimera[1], DHM[3], > HyperForm[11], Microcosm[2] and the HB/SP series[9]. Authors create Links > between parts of documents that are related. Users can then click on those > links to move between documents. Although Navigational Hypertext systems > can be quite sophisticated, by far the most popular system, the World Wide > Web, is also one of the simplest. > Spatial Hypertext systems allow users to organise their information > visually in a process known as "Information Triage"[5]. Relationships > between nodes are expressed by their visual characteristics such as > proximity, colour or shape. This results in visual collections, or Spaces, > such as lists and sets. Spatial hypertext systems are therefore ideal for > an evolving organisation of data. Examples of such systems include VIKI[4] > and CAOS[8]. > Taxonomic Hypertext is the organisation of information artifacts into > Categories[7]. Where authors disagree about the categorisation, the > Taxonomy can branch into different Perspectives[10]. Applications can allow > users to navigate the information space by moving between overlapping > Categories and can also reason about the relationships that artifacts have > with one another. " > > "In FOHM we describe four first-class objects that are analogous to the > objects in the OHP data model. Associations are structures that represent > relationships between Data objects. These Data objects are wrappers for any > piece of data that lies outside of the scope of the model. They normally > represent a document although one could represent any file, stream or other > item. It is exactly this feature that we shall use to make links between > concepts and queries. Data objects are not directly placed in the > Associations. Instead Reference objects are used, these either point at > Data objects in their entirety or at parts of those Data objects, for > example the second paragraph of a text document, or the second scene of a > film. They are attached to the Association object via Bindings. Each > Association also has a structure type and a feature space; each Binding > must state its position in that feature space, effectively stating how it > is bound to the Association's structure. " > > "Where the FOHM model differs from other open hypermedia models is in its > placement of context at the heart of the information. Context is left as an > opaque object within the FOHM model with the specifics being defined by the > implementation. > Context objects can be attached to all parts of the FOHM structure ..." > > "In addition to context, behaviour objects can also be attached to the > different parts of the FOHM data structures. Like context objects, > behaviour objects are also opaque. Unlike context objects however the > implementation of the FOHM model is not required to understand the contents > of the behaviour object..." > > Originally, according to the Hypertext 2001 proceedings, there was an > implementation called "Auld Leaky." Now, it is known as "Auld Linky" > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky.shtml > complete with downloads (it's Perl, I don't yet know the license). > > What's particularly curious (for me) is the resemblance to topic maps. It > strikes me that their "contexts" are a topic map's "scopes", though topic > maps don't do "behaviors." FOHM appears to be association-centric, while > topic maps appear to be topic-centric. I'd really like to see what others > think about FOHM. > > Cheers! > Jack > > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 12 10:19:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4C07C56FF3; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F19EA56FF2 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020512173550.OONV22408.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 17:35:50 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020512103212.00dcc8b0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:33:26 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] NekoHTML scanner-balancer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.apache.org/~andyc/nekohtml/doc/index.html Java, Apache "NekoHTML is a simple HTML scanner and tag balancer that enables application programmers to parse HTML documents and access the information using standard XML interfaces. The parser can scan HTML files and "fix up" many common mistakes that human (and computer) authors make in writing HTML documents. NekoHTML adds missing parent elements; automatically closes elements with optional end tags; and can handle mismatched inline element tags. NekoHTML is written using the Xerces Native Interface (XNI) that is the foundation of the Xerces2 implementation. This enables you to use the NekoHTML parser with existing XNI tools without modification or rewriting code. " This is likely a required widget for any HyperScope project. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 12 10:22:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 43ADA56FF4; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail7.svr.pol.co.uk (mail7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.21]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2261B56FF3 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 10:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-166.charmander.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.74.166] helo=vaio) by mail7.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 176xJ2-0002WO-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 12 May 2002 18:38:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c1f9db$a8691ea0$a64a87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <4.2.2.20020512083742.00dc9140@thinkalong.com> <001001c1f9d6$0aafde60$424c87d9@vaio> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 18:37:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >From this page http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/publications/byauthor/hcd.html it's clear that the Southampton Uni group were looking at HyTime in '93- 94 Why Use HyTime? Les A. Carr, David W. Barron, Hugh C. Davis, Wendy Hall Electronic Publishing: Origination, Dissemination and Design, 7, 3. 1994. FOHM appears later in 2000. FOHM: A Fundamental Open Hypertext Model for Investigating Interoperability between Hypertext Domains Dave Millard, Luc Moreau, Hugh Davis, Sigi Reich Pages 93-102 of: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia HT'00 San-Antonio, Texas : ACM. 6 2000. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Jones" To: Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model > > What's particularly curious (for me) is the resemblance to topic maps. > It > > strikes me that their "contexts" are a topic map's "scopes", though > topic > > maps don't do "behaviors." FOHM appears to be association-centric, > while > > topic maps appear to be topic-centric. > > I'd agree with that. > > From the FOHM description page it looks like most publication on > FOHM stopped around the time HyTime '97 came out. > > But the last DTD published was > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dem/equator/eqfohm/definitions/fohm19-3-01.d > td > > And Auld Linky seems to be continuing under the Equator workshops (see > below). > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linkysoftware.shtml > now at v.0.72 > > It's the project of David Millard, who is a Research Fellow in the same > Univ. of Southampton > dept. where a postgrad by the name of Graham D. Moore used to spend some > time. > http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ > http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/people_full_list.html > > Dr. Millard's main project seems to be the Equator workshops > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/projects/projects.shtml > where Auld Linky is a project. > > Ask Graham? > > There are some interesting papers here too: > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/papers/papers.shtml > Notably: > > On Hyperstructure and Musical Structure > > Accepted at HT02, Maryland, USA. > > Abstract : In this paper we report on an ongoing investigation into the > relationship between musical structure and hyperstructure, based on a > series of open hypermedia systems research projects that have featured > case studies involving musical content. Drawing on these example > systems, we consider techniques for building hyperstructure from musical > structure and, conversely, building musical structure from > hyperstructure. Additionally we describe an experiment in the > sonification of hyperstructure. > --Submitted in 2002. PDF download (but my browser crashed trying to > download it so I haven't read it yet). > > Great minds think alike (a bit later on) > Ask Steve Newcomb? > > -- > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jack Park" > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 4:51 PM > Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] FOHM--the Fundamental Open Hypertext Model > > > > > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky0.5/intro/fohm_ > description.html (one of dozens of pages <~1030> when you google FOHM) > > > > Excerpts: > > "The Fundamental Open Hypertext Model (FOHM) [6] grew out of the Open > > Hypermedia Protocol (OHP) developed by the Open Hypermedia Systems > Working > > Group (OHSWG) but it expands the OHP data model to describe a broader > set > > of hypermedia "domains". FOHM also makes no assumptions about the > protocol > > it is running over or the systems that are using it. It is a model for > > describing hypertext structures that requires binding to a syntax > before it > > can be used" > > > > "In its work on interoperability, the OHSWG considered the > requirements of > > several domains of hypertext. The three most frequently mentioned were > > Navigational, Spatial and Taxonomic Hypertext. The OHP protocol was > always > > more concerned with Navigational Hypertext, however FOHM is capable of > > expressing all three domains. Before we can examine FOHM it is > necessary to > > define these domains. > > Navigational Hypertext is the most traditional domain of hypertext, > > exemplified in Open Hypermedia Systems such as Chimera[1], DHM[3], > > HyperForm[11], Microcosm[2] and the HB/SP series[9]. Authors create > Links > > between parts of documents that are related. Users can then click on > those > > links to move between documents. Although Navigational Hypertext > systems > > can be quite sophisticated, by far the most popular system, the World > Wide > > Web, is also one of the simplest. > > Spatial Hypertext systems allow users to organise their information > > visually in a process known as "Information Triage"[5]. Relationships > > between nodes are expressed by their visual characteristics such as > > proximity, colour or shape. This results in visual collections, or > Spaces, > > such as lists and sets. Spatial hypertext systems are therefore ideal > for > > an evolving organisation of data. Examples of such systems include > VIKI[4] > > and CAOS[8]. > > Taxonomic Hypertext is the organisation of information artifacts into > > Categories[7]. Where authors disagree about the categorisation, the > > Taxonomy can branch into different Perspectives[10]. Applications can > allow > > users to navigate the information space by moving between overlapping > > Categories and can also reason about the relationships that artifacts > have > > with one another. " > > > > "In FOHM we describe four first-class objects that are analogous to > the > > objects in the OHP data model. Associations are structures that > represent > > relationships between Data objects. These Data objects are wrappers > for any > > piece of data that lies outside of the scope of the model. They > normally > > represent a document although one could represent any file, stream or > other > > item. It is exactly this feature that we shall use to make links > between > > concepts and queries. Data objects are not directly placed in the > > Associations. Instead Reference objects are used, these either point > at > > Data objects in their entirety or at parts of those Data objects, for > > example the second paragraph of a text document, or the second scene > of a > > film. They are attached to the Association object via Bindings. Each > > Association also has a structure type and a feature space; each > Binding > > must state its position in that feature space, effectively stating how > it > > is bound to the Association's structure. " > > > > "Where the FOHM model differs from other open hypermedia models is in > its > > placement of context at the heart of the information. Context is left > as an > > opaque object within the FOHM model with the specifics being defined > by the > > implementation. > > Context objects can be attached to all parts of the FOHM structure > ..." > > > > "In addition to context, behaviour objects can also be attached to the > > different parts of the FOHM data structures. Like context objects, > > behaviour objects are also opaque. Unlike context objects however the > > implementation of the FOHM model is not required to understand the > contents > > of the behaviour object..." > > > > Originally, according to the Hypertext 2001 proceedings, there was an > > implementation called "Auld Leaky." Now, it is known as "Auld Linky" > > http://www.equator.ecs.soton.ac.uk/technology/linky/linky.shtml > > complete with downloads (it's Perl, I don't yet know the license). > > > > What's particularly curious (for me) is the resemblance to topic maps. > It > > strikes me that their "contexts" are a topic map's "scopes", though > topic > > maps don't do "behaviors." FOHM appears to be association-centric, > while > > topic maps appear to be topic-centric. I'd really like to see what > others > > think about FOHM. > > > > Cheers! > > Jack > > > > > > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 12 22:12:42 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 83E8D56FF3; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55CD256FF2 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.5] ([12.234.196.149]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020513052852.ZRHI25765.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@[192.168.100.5]> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 05:28:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jernst@mail.r-objects.com Message-Id: Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:28:49 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Johannes Ernst Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This is a follow-on to the recent discussion on open source / free software licensing models etc. [there may be more appropriate mailing lists for this question but I don't know any I'm afraid so bear with me.] An Open Source license between Developer and User typically allows User to use Developer's covered code without charge. Let's assume that Developer implemented XYZ algorithm and that that implementation is part of covered (ie open-sourced) code. This means, User can use Developer's implementation of XYZ algorithm without charge. Let's assume for a second that Developer also patented XYZ algorithm (for simplicity, assume Developer patented XYZ algorithm "long before" he open-sourced the code). The patent isn't limited to any particular "embodiment" (I think that is the term -- this should be the normal case if the attorney knows what he is doing). It sounds like the Open Source license grants User certain rights ... but what are those, exactly, given that there is a patent for XYZ algorithm? In particular, let's say User re-implements XYZ algorithm in a more efficient way, or in a different programming language etc. (e.g. assembly code using no dynamic memory allocation for argument's sake). User's implementation of XYZ algorithm does not share even a single line of code with Developer's implementation of XYZ algorithm (which was subject to the Open Source license). Am I paranoid, or does it sound like Developer can sue User for patent infringement because of User's complete re-implementation of XYZ algorithm? My understanding is that the typical Open Source license only covers *released code*, not *all* the intellectual property used for the code? In other words, Developer's "embodiment" of XYZ algorithm, as released in code, would be subject to the open source license, but Developer's patent of XYZ algorithm would not be, preventing the User from creating a more efficient re-implementation, for example? Am I off-base here, or is there quite a can of worms hidden here somewhere? Anyone ever looked at the patent portfolio of any of the (particularly larger) companies that often release some of their own code into the public domain? Confused ... Johannes. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 01:22:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 994FA56FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 01:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13307.mail.yahoo.com (web13307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A4CF56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 01:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020513083851.625.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2002 01:38:51 PDT Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I think the best place for that question is gnu-misc-discuss. http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss --- Johannes Ernst wrote: > This is a follow-on to the recent discussion on open > source / free > software licensing models etc. [there may be more > appropriate mailing > lists for this question but I don't know any I'm > afraid so bear with > me.] mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 04:02:57 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1675156FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A6A256FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:18:34 +0100 Message-ID: <3CDFA0DB.7040803@open.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:17:47 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] NekoHTML scanner-balancer References: <4.2.2.20020512103212.00dcc8b0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > http://www.apache.org/~andyc/nekohtml/doc/index.html > Java, Apache > > "NekoHTML is a simple HTML scanner and tag balancer that enables > application programmers to parse HTML documents and access the > information using standard XML interfaces. The parser can scan HTML > files and "fix up" many common mistakes that human (and computer) > authors make in writing HTML documents. NekoHTML adds missing parent > elements; automatically closes elements with optional end tags; and can > handle mismatched inline element tags. > NekoHTML is written using the Xerces Native Interface (XNI) that is the > foundation of the Xerces2 implementation. This enables you to use the > NekoHTML parser with existing XNI tools without modification or > rewriting code. " > > This is likely a required widget for any HyperScope project. I'm currently using JTidy in Ceryle, but am not particularly happy with it. I've sent a message to Andy Clark at Apache asking if there are any plans to have NekoHTML produce XHTML rather than simply an API to an HTML document. I'm currently storing HTML in Ceryle as plaintext, so it'd be nice to have well-formed HTML even if it's not XHTML. I'll check this out. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 07:07:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 51D5056FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 07:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7628356FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 07:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1507-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.6.237]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A6323472 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:23:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CDFCCC9.D183E1DA@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:25:13 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Johannes Ernst wrote: > Am I off-base here, or is there quite a can of worms hidden here > somewhere? Anyone ever looked at the patent portfolio of any of the > (particularly larger) companies that often release some of their own > code into the public domain? I am not a lawyer, but I am a twenty+ year software developer with an interest in copyright and patent legal issues, and it is my understanding that: 1. You can release code under an open source license such as BSD (which does not reference patents) and then sue users of the code for patent infringement even if they are only using exactly the code you wrote. This is clearly unfriendly, and users might fight in court saying you gave them an implied license, but I think the author (patent holder) might win. Look at it this way, if you own a patent on an algorithm, like many "non-profits" do these days, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html why not just release an explicitly public domain implementation and then say if someone wants to use the code, they must also pay to license the patent? The unfortunate thing about software patents is they imply having a copyright license to copy code in no way ensures you have all the licenses needed to run the code. Note that some especially greedy non-profits (or for-profits) try to double dip by charging separately both for patents and access to copyrighted implementations, but that's another story (they often try to also claim trade secrets in the copyrighted code as well to prevent discussing its shortcomings). 2. Some licenses like the GPL explicitly say any referred patent will be licensed freely. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. > We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will > individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program > proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent > must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. [Note: IIRC Richard Stallman says this can be read to say a patent only needs to cover free GPL implementations and can be otherwise enforced against others.] While one may or may not like the GPL's political stance on enforced sharing, this is one gotcha it it confronts up front -- contributors embedding patented algorithms to trap the unwary. Note that patents (and copyrights) unlike trademarks can be enforced at any time -- even after letting users slide by for years infringing the use of them (witness the current British Telecom effort to enforce a hyperlinking patent). http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,50398,00.html 3. Note though, that if GPL'd code is found to unknowingly reference a patent that isn't freely licensed, the GPL says the code can't be redistributed by anyone. >From the GPL license text: > If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement > or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are > imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that > contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from > the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy > simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent > obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. > For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution > of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or > indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and > this License would be to refrain entirely > from distribution of the Program. Contrast this with "permission to use". http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/permission.html One reading of "permission to use" would imply if you contribute any code to any Bootstrap effort you grant a license to Bootstrap and Stanford to use any software patents somehow referenced by the code however they see fit in any projects (including sublicensing to Microsoft). However, this license does not extend to any end users of your code or content (since "permission to use" just grants rights to Stanford and BI, not the end users). Note that if you don't own all patents referenced by your contributed code (say you put in hyperlinking code but don't have a worldwide license to BT's hyperlinking patent) then the indemnification clause of "permission to use" might be read to imply you need to pay Stanford or BI whatever it takes to make the patent holder happy (could be $billions for worldwide licensing rights, including all legal fees etc.). This is why I harp on the revision of "Permission to use" so that the Bootstrap OHS coding effort can move forward as "open source" or "free software", where contributors in the U.S.A. feel comfortable contributing given software patents. [Just rattling around as another Thursday CPC meetign has presumably came and went... ] Proposal: regarding patents, repeal "permission to use" and use the GPL license for the OHS project. Insist (only) that all contributors say their work is original, and that they have permission to contribute it from their employer if such is needed, and that they contribute the code under the GPL license. The old approach over the past two years isn't working to produce code. To paraprase an old TV commercial -- "Where the code?" Why isn't there any significant OHS code released through this colloquium? Perhaps, realistically, nobody who insists on a more permissive license (like BSD or Apache) because they have proprietary commercialization plans for OHS is likely to be going to do any work of this magnitude gratis anyway, and there are too many smooth talking (university) competitors for grant funds to pay people to do it http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ otherwise significant funds would have been here by now -- given the effort Doug (and others) have expended in beating the bushes. [Feel free to surprise me.] Yet, the "permission to use" policy has driven away the very peopel who might build a libre OHS gratis. If someone finally gets significant grants funds for an OHS, and it can be proprietary, the effort will probably just vanish in the noise of all the other ongoing proprietary KM efforts brought up by list participants. With Doug's visibility coupled to a GPL'd OHS implementation, the project might get somewhere faster. We could even have two competing projects -- an Apache version and a GPL'd version. I'd work on the GPL version. Sadly, "permission to use" directly blocks my own efforts in any public OHS direction involving the community of this list. It is very frustrating -- because I can't just say to this list "here is a GPL'd OHS project" without also writing a blank check to Stanford and BI. (I would if I could just to see the project go forward and Doug's vision realized, but I can't - and even if I could, I doubt my wife would approve. :-) Besides, I could not in good conscience convince any other person to contribute even one line of code under "permission to use" -- since even if I were willing to risk my entire financial future myself, I could not ask others to be so foolish given all the thousands of other open source or free software projects out there (many I first saw here) that touch on OHS issues and do not have such a problem. That is mainly why I stopped posting on this list -- to disassociate my efforts from any twisting of "permission to use". I post now in hopes this "permission to use" and patent license etc. issues can finally be resolved. Alternatively, can some lawyer or judge just declare "permission to use" invalid because it is a very broad agreement to hold if not signed (or at least the "extended" part) -- essentially becoming in effect like an overly broad non-compete agreement for any prudent person? Anyway, better things to do than be a broken record on this topic. If the "permission to use" issue as regards software patents and other things gets resolved someday (and Mei Lin wrote 1 May 2002 a discusion is in the works), fantastic -- and please let me know so I can contribute then. If not, this is the last I'll post on this "permission to use" indemnification issue, to avoid dragging down the other very positive aspects of this discussion forum (and myself in negativity). I learn much by following this list. I'm unfortunately still left in a quandry about whether posting on other issues here or unrev creates too much of an association of my other efforts (like the Pointrel Data Repository System) and "permission to use" and so the prudent thing on that basis is not to post (such as during most of the past year) until the issue is resolved. Whether I can contain myself given all the great discussions going on here remains to be seen. It's also saddening to see great contributors like Chris Dent and Kathryn La Barre http://ella.slis.indiana.edu./~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~cjdent/unrev/index.cgi left twisting in the wind so long regarding a firm answer from BI or BA or Stanford on copyright issues for the email archives -- when the whole point of "permission to use" should be to at the very least make work such as theirs possible! So "permission to use" prevents my work here on code, but yet has produced no real benefit when it could, thus making it in practice the worst of both worlds. As I wrote before (April 30, 2002 on the unrev list), if the work can't be done pro-bono, I'll pledge US$300 towards legal fees for a lawyer to unravel this mess of "permission to use" to strike a better compromise for OHS coding volunteers and get Stanford and BI (or whoever) to sign off on it. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 09:29:06 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 399EB56FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F178756FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020513164515.WTQF25294.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:45:15 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020513093917.00dcd680@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:42:49 -0700 To: BA-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Human-Links information organizer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Take a look at the screenshot at http://www.human-links.com/en/demo.php "Human-Links benefits from the latest advances in cognitive science and=20 artificial intelligence, and technologies derived from research in natural= =20 language translation. Composed of a system of that identifies core concepts= =20 and allows users to index and search for web pages accordingly, this kind=20 of analysis is able to extract themes from texts and organize documents in= =20 groups. " Human-Links, functionalities : =B7 Indexation of textual documents (html, pdf, word=85) through the= IE=20 toolbar or directly from the applilcation. =B7 In progress : integration of the toolbar in Netscape and= publishing=20 tools (MS Office=85) =B7 Creation of vectors of words that represent documents (all words= =20 except those in common use) =B7 Address of document (local, other disks, intranet, internet) =B7 Document preview =B7 Summary (if integrated in the document) =B7 In progress : Maintenance, periodic verification (daily, weekly,= =20 monthly) of document addresses. It's downloadable for Wintel boxes now (linux, etc later, they say). I=20 don't see any evidence of price, but the tutorial says that in order to use= =20 it you must sign onto their network, whatever that means. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 10:48:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4626956FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E9B3A56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020513180409.LOS25294.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:04:09 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:01:47 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled) In-Reply-To: <3CDFCCC9.D183E1DA@kurtz-fernhout.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Johannes asks great questions, and Paul, as always, has great responses (notice I didn't say "answers"). Paul's response (included below) has prompted me to go public with some of my thinking. But first, I'm not a lawyer, and never even played one on TV, but I do recall that a paper discussing the design and intentions of the Mozilla Public License (which I cannot find with google anymore) spent a lot of verbiage talking about the very issues Johannes raises. A quick read of MPL 1.1 tells me I have no idea what they are saying, however. So, I'm going to go public with some of my thinking along these lines. Whilst I do not much care for the attitudes that reside behind the GNU GPL, I think they arose out of some honest problems that exist in the software industry. I also think that the GNU GPL goes a long way toward resolving those issues, even if MS doesn't like it. I've been wondering if it isn't time to rethink everything one more time. Here is where I am going with that. Ok. I don't much care for the viral nature of the GNU GPL, but, in reality, that's likely because I don't much care for the idea of wrecking the software industry. What, I wonder, would happen if the viral nature were harnessed, instead, to help the software industry. How might that happen? To think about that, we go all the way back to some of the earliest ideas sprouted by the likes of Engelbart and Nelson, hyperlinking and micropayment streams. If you're going to connect with everyone, why not turn the whole web of connections into a financial ecology, one that doesn't impact people in the same way that paying hundreds of dollars for an operating system that crashes all the time does. Is this being done already? Actually, yes. Buy Jason Hunter's Servlets book and you get the rights to use his source code in your projects. You can even use that code in a commercial project, so long as everyone on the team owns the latest copy of the book. (I confess, at this writing, I'm a bit confused after reading the license--it's clear you can use the software in commercial projects, but it's not clear you can actually sell the product without further discussions with Hunter). Micropayments, indeed. Also, you are not granted the right to distribute the source code. To get the source code, you must buy the book. In some sense, paying, say $50 for access to code that will save you far more than that amount if you use it makes sense. Suppose, then, that we look at inheriting directly from GNU GPL, by, say, adding some verbiage to it that takes advantage of the viral nature and essentially does precisely what the license already does, with the added proviso that distribution of derivative works implies the equivalent of distribution of the "latest copy of the book" with it. Essentially, a royalty stream. It's also known as MLM -- multilevel marketing (which has, imho, a bad name owing to the observation that many folks involved in MLM don't know anything about the products they are hustling; they're apparently in it for the ride). Is this a disruptive idea? Probably. Is it an original idea? I already said it isn't original. Who else is doing it? Google micropayments. You'll likely land at Brad Cox's site, in which he discusses the whole idea. Could it work? Maybe. How might it work? Consider this: I have this WikiWiki that serves as the backbone for plug in Wikis. One of them does IBIS, one of them tries to mimic the Lucid Fried Eggs program (see that program at http://www.memes.net), one of them serves as a development and presentation platform for online courses, one of them serves as an authoring and presentation platform for manuscripts (which I happen to need in order to put my book _XML Topic Maps_ on the web). Two others in the pipeline serve users directly ("MyWiki") and groups, and enable construction of Web portals. Sounds like a lot of stuff. It is, but, given the Wiki nature of things, it turns out that it's not too hard to add features. What's unique? To start with, the entire Wiki universe is version controlled at the "purple number" level, meaning paragraphs, etc. Also, each "purple number" is really the URL of a "home page" for the specific unit of information identified by the number. And, the homepage is also a meeting grounds where anyone can go (click the "purple number) and launch an IBIS discussion about that specific information object. The homepage could also serve as a repository for backlinks that keep track of where that object has been transcluded. Homepage also serves as access to previous versions. Homepage is where new versions are created. Also, and not the least, that page could be the launching ground for that which ScholOnto is all about: building links between information objects. Essentially, the project is information-object centric, with a user interface that tries to make things easy. NexistWiki is functional on my local net at home. It's now in a box to be taken online at http://www.nexist.org as soon as I finish making apache and tomcat talk to each other, but it is, by no means, completed, yet Having said all that, I am wondering how this project might be published. My first thought was to write a book about it, include the source code with the book, and give it a license similar to the one Jason Hunter uses. More recent thinking involves generalizing that approach. For that, I am reminded of the OpenDoc initiative started by Apple, IBM, and others. In that space, an "object bus" somewhat akin to Corba, was created such that anyone could publish widgets (e.g. spreadsheets, word processors, etc) that seamlessly drop onto the bus. Apple even went so far as to drop the "File" menu in favor of one called "Document": click new and you got a new document, a canvas on which you could drag and drop widgets that automatically settled into the document; start with a word processor, drag out a spreadsheet when you need it, drag in a graphics engine, whatever. For me, the appealing aspect was that OpenDoc opened an entire financial ecosystem in which anyone could play. I think we can resurrect that ecosystem. That's the point of going public with my thinking now. I think that something along the lines of the GNU GPL could be harnessed to revive (not wreck) the software industry. Lofty thought, that. To do so, I am thinking, in relation to my Wiki project, that I could publish it with or without a book, but subject to some micropayment system. The micropayment system is, in fact, a publishing scheme by which authors that add value to the Wiki can put their "jar" files into the catalog of widgets available. The beginnings of a small financial ecosystem. Suppose, then, that this publishing mechanism sent a bucket brigade of micropayments backward to those who contribute stuff that's already free, like, to some consortium that improves Java, to the Apache foundation, even to individuals who make great things (e.g. TouchGraph). Beer money at first, perhaps a career eventually. Who knows. Summarizing, I think that I am doing nothing less than revising OpenSourceThink. You buy (at some nominal cost) some software and you still get the source code. You are free to revise it, fix it, whatever. You are also responsible for playing within the constraints of an ecosystem in which that software resides. You are also free to enhance that ecosystem by dropping your additions back into the pool, laughing, I suppose, all the way to the bank. Finally, I must tie this into the OHS thread, for that is what this list is all about. Since I'm rethinking things, why not rethink Bootstrap Alliance while I'm at it. What is the BA value proposition? I think the value proposition resides in the possibility of taking Dr. Engelbart's vision to the masses, with great potential to benefit humankind. Under that, however, what is BA? Here, I am rethinkiing again. How many people reading this are aware that Mcdonalds Corp is not a hamburger company? Mcdonalds is a real estate investment company, but they have "positioned" themselves, that is, their value proposition, resides in hamburgers. The same kind of thinking could apply to BA. The value proposition stands as is, but the entity, BA, could be a software development firm, one that is the center of an entire financial ecosystem comprised of people all over the world contributing enhancements to that ecosystem, and thus, to humankind. Disruptive thought? Yup. Beginnings of a FAQ: Q: Won't people ignore this and just steal the source code anyway? A: Yup 'nough said for now. Cheers! Jack At 10:25 AM 5/13/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Johannes Ernst wrote: > > Am I off-base here, or is there quite a can of worms hidden here > > somewhere? Anyone ever looked at the patent portfolio of any of the > > (particularly larger) companies that often release some of their own > > code into the public domain? > >I am not a lawyer, but I am a twenty+ year software developer with an >interest in copyright and patent legal issues, and it is my >understanding that: > >1. You can release code under an open source license such as BSD (which >does not reference patents) and then sue users of the code for patent >infringement even if they are only using exactly the code you wrote. >This is clearly unfriendly, and users might fight in court saying you >gave them an implied license, but I think the author (patent holder) >might win. Look at it this way, if you own a patent on an algorithm, >like many "non-profits" do these days, > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm > http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html > http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html >why not just release an explicitly public domain implementation and then >say if someone wants to use the code, they must also pay to license the >patent? > >The unfortunate thing about software patents is they imply having a >copyright license to copy code in no way ensures you have all the >licenses needed to run the code. Note that some especially greedy >non-profits (or for-profits) try to double dip by charging separately >both for patents and access to copyrighted implementations, but that's >another story (they often try to also claim trade secrets in the >copyrighted code as well to prevent discussing its shortcomings). > >2. Some licenses like the GPL explicitly say any referred patent will be >licensed freely. > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > > Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. > > We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will > > individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program > > proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent > > must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. >[Note: IIRC Richard Stallman says this can be read to say a patent only >needs to cover free GPL implementations and can be otherwise enforced >against others.] > >While one may or may not like the GPL's political stance on enforced >sharing, this is one gotcha it it confronts up front -- contributors >embedding patented algorithms to trap the unwary. Note that patents (and >copyrights) unlike trademarks can be enforced at any time -- even after >letting users slide by for years infringing the use of them (witness the >current British Telecom effort to enforce a hyperlinking patent). > http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,50398,00.html > >3. Note though, that if GPL'd code is found to unknowingly reference a >patent that isn't freely licensed, the GPL says the code can't be >redistributed by anyone. > > >From the GPL license text: > > If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent > infringement > > or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are > > imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that > > contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from > > the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy > > simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent > > obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program > at all. > > For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > redistribution > > of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or > > indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and > > this License would be to refrain entirely > > from distribution of the Program. > >Contrast this with "permission to use". > http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/permission.html > >One reading of "permission to use" would imply if you contribute any >code to any Bootstrap effort you grant a license to Bootstrap and >Stanford to use any software patents somehow referenced by the code >however they see fit in any projects (including sublicensing to >Microsoft). However, this license does not extend to any end users of >your code or content (since "permission to use" just grants rights to >Stanford and BI, not the end users). Note that if you don't own all >patents referenced by your contributed code (say you put in hyperlinking >code but don't have a worldwide license to BT's hyperlinking patent) >then the indemnification clause of "permission to use" might be read to >imply you need to pay Stanford or BI whatever it takes to make the >patent holder happy (could be $billions for worldwide licensing rights, >including all legal fees etc.). This is why I harp on the revision of >"Permission to use" so that the Bootstrap OHS coding effort can move >forward as "open source" or "free software", where contributors in the >U.S.A. feel comfortable contributing given software patents. [Just >rattling around as another Thursday CPC meetign has presumably came and >went... ] > >Proposal: regarding patents, repeal "permission to use" and use the GPL >license for the OHS project. Insist (only) that all contributors say >their work is original, and that they have permission to contribute it >from their employer if such is needed, and that they contribute the code >under the GPL license. > >The old approach over the past two years isn't working to produce code. >To paraprase an old TV commercial -- "Where the code?" > >Why isn't there any significant OHS code released through this >colloquium? Perhaps, realistically, nobody who insists on a more >permissive license (like BSD or Apache) because they have proprietary >commercialization plans for OHS is likely to be going to do any work of >this magnitude gratis anyway, and there are too many smooth talking >(university) competitors for grant funds to pay people to do it > http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ >otherwise significant funds would have been here by now -- given the >effort Doug (and others) have expended in beating the bushes. [Feel free >to surprise me.] Yet, the "permission to use" policy has driven away the >very peopel who might build a libre OHS gratis. If someone finally gets >significant grants funds for an OHS, and it can be proprietary, the >effort will probably just vanish in the noise of all the other ongoing >proprietary KM efforts brought up by list participants. > >With Doug's visibility coupled to a GPL'd OHS implementation, the >project might get somewhere faster. We could even have two competing >projects -- an Apache version and a GPL'd version. I'd work on the GPL >version. Sadly, "permission to use" directly blocks my own efforts in >any public OHS direction involving the community of this list. It is >very frustrating -- because I can't just say to this list "here is a >GPL'd OHS project" without also writing a blank check to Stanford and >BI. (I would if I could just to see the project go forward and Doug's >vision realized, but I can't - and even if I could, I doubt my wife >would approve. :-) > >Besides, I could not in good conscience convince any other person to >contribute even one line of code under "permission to use" -- since even >if I were willing to risk my entire financial future myself, I could not >ask others to be so foolish given all the thousands of other open source >or free software projects out there (many I first saw here) that touch >on OHS issues and do not have such a problem. > >That is mainly why I stopped posting on this list -- to disassociate my >efforts from any twisting of "permission to use". I post now in hopes >this "permission to use" and patent license etc. issues can finally be >resolved. Alternatively, can some lawyer or judge just declare >"permission to use" invalid because it is a very broad agreement to hold >if not signed (or at least the "extended" part) -- essentially becoming >in effect like an overly broad non-compete agreement for any prudent >person? > >Anyway, better things to do than be a broken record on this topic. If >the "permission to use" issue as regards software patents and other >things gets resolved someday (and Mei Lin wrote 1 May 2002 a discusion >is in the works), fantastic -- and please let me know so I can >contribute then. If not, this is the last I'll post on this "permission >to use" indemnification issue, to avoid dragging down the other very >positive aspects of this discussion forum (and myself in negativity). I >learn much by following this list. I'm unfortunately still left in a >quandry about whether posting on other issues here or unrev creates too >much of an association of my other efforts (like the Pointrel Data >Repository System) and "permission to use" and so the prudent thing on >that basis is not to post (such as during most of the past year) until >the issue is resolved. Whether I can contain myself given all the great >discussions going on here remains to be seen. > >It's also saddening to see great contributors like Chris Dent and >Kathryn La Barre > http://ella.slis.indiana.edu./~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html > http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~cjdent/unrev/index.cgi >left twisting in the wind so long regarding a firm answer from BI or BA >or Stanford on copyright issues for the email archives -- when the whole >point of "permission to use" should be to at the very least make work >such as theirs possible! So "permission to use" prevents my work here on >code, but yet has produced no real benefit when it could, thus making it >in practice the worst of both worlds. As I wrote before (April 30, 2002 >on the unrev list), if the work can't be done pro-bono, I'll pledge >US$300 towards legal fees for a lawyer to unravel this mess of >"permission to use" to strike a better compromise for OHS coding >volunteers and get Stanford and BI (or whoever) to sign off on it. > >-Paul Fernhout >Kurtz-Fernhout Software >========================================================= >Developers of custom software and educational simulations >Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator >http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 14:13:53 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4FF6856FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cpimssmtpu03.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu03.email.msn.com [207.46.181.79]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF37256FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centro ([63.231.39.246]) by cpimssmtpu03.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617); Mon, 13 May 2002 14:29:19 -0700 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:29:57 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2002 21:29:19.0799 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DF40C70:01C1FAC5] Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org You have to look at the individual open-source license to see if there is any provision about patented technology, etc. Most open-source licenses are based primarily on copyright, and the derivative work clauses are related to copyright as a property right. Some (including the GPL) do more concerning patents, but none that I've seen in generic use embody any automatic license to specific patented technology. It is inherent to genuine open source licenses that they grant the recipient the use of the software and the freedom to redistribute the software, so long it is under the same terms. Also there must be source code available (in contrast with freeware where the code is withheld). So long as the original licensor is the patent holder, it would seem that this grant is complete and irrevocable, absent wording to the contrary. If the license allows creation of derivative works (including translations) without any further license, that would seem to be clear as well. As a practical matter, the greater problem for software is the unwitting or careless use of patented technology in software for which the author does not have a license to the patent (possibly subsequently issued but with priority). This exposes all users of the software, including the author, to infringement actions. For example, if the British Telecom patent on hyperlinking holds up, we are all in deep doo-doo, and it has nothing to do with open-source licensing. I believe a standard way to put a patent in "open source" is not to claim the patent but to disclose the innovation without patenting it. The publication of disclosure (and there are publications used specifically for this purpose) basically makes the innovation unpatentable since it is essentially a quit claim that also makes the invention no longer novel -- it establishes prior art against anyones subsequent claim. -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Johannes Ernst Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 22:29 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled [ ... ] Let's assume for a second that Developer also patented XYZ algorithm (for simplicity, assume Developer patented XYZ algorithm "long before" he open-sourced the code). The patent isn't limited to any particular "embodiment" (I think that is the term -- this should be the normal case if the attorney knows what he is doing). It sounds like the Open Source license grants User certain rights ... but what are those, exactly, given that there is a patent for XYZ algorithm? [ ... ] Am I off-base here, or is there quite a can of worms hidden here somewhere? Anyone ever looked at the patent portfolio of any of the (particularly larger) companies that often release some of their own code into the public domain? Confused ... Johannes. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 15:09:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 18A2656FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9194956FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12911 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:25:37 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4DMPaW28769 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE03D61.AB19E584@sun.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:25:37 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source +patents = puzzled) References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Yes, I think something along these lines makes sense. Automating the process is the hard part, but a "software ecology" is a sound concept, imho. I suspect that the system would need to work something like this: * You have access to this huge library, with lots of APIs. * Anything you build that uses those APIs would be sold within the ecological framework. * Any API you use would receive a fractional percent of the revenue, based on the contribution of that API to the whole. * The API's "contribution" would have to be factored with respect to relative size and the total count of APIs in the system. (It's a tough one. The code for a database API might be huge, and yet only used once in a trivial little application. On the other hand, that application might access a database that people access a lot, like a TV listing. So 50% of a tiny $10 app might consist of that API -- but the value primarily comes from the data -- not the API. * That's where negotiation comes in -- to argue the relative value of the pieces. That's something the mechanism needs to take into account. * Interestingly, a large API or body of code (whichever metric is used) might be more expensive, but smaller, lighter APIs would see more use -- making an interesting economy that favored smaller APIs! I think the negotiation / determination of relative value is the trickiest proposition -- as is the need to move revenues through the system, so they are automatically distributed to contributors. Then there is the need to know in advance how much of the revenue will be diverted, so you can set the pricing properly. But those are mostly mechanical details. It's the relative value problem that makes a good solution hard to find. Jack Park wrote: > Johannes asks great questions, and Paul, as always, has great responses > (notice I didn't say "answers"). Paul's response (included below) has > prompted me to go public with some of my thinking. > > But first, I'm not a lawyer, and never even played one on TV, but I do > recall that a paper discussing the design and intentions of the Mozilla > Public License (which I cannot find with google anymore) spent a lot of > verbiage talking about the very issues Johannes raises. A quick read of > MPL 1.1 tells me I have no idea what they are saying, however. > > So, I'm going to go public with some of my thinking along these > lines. Whilst I do not much care for the attitudes that reside behind the > GNU GPL, I think they arose out of some honest problems that exist in the > software industry. I also think that the GNU GPL goes a long way toward > resolving those issues, even if MS doesn't like it. > > I've been wondering if it isn't time to rethink everything one more > time. Here is where I am going with that. Ok. I don't much care for the > viral nature of the GNU GPL, but, in reality, that's likely because I don't > much care for the idea of wrecking the software industry. What, I wonder, > would happen if the viral nature were harnessed, instead, to help the > software industry. How might that happen? > > To think about that, we go all the way back to some of the earliest ideas > sprouted by the likes of Engelbart and Nelson, hyperlinking and > micropayment streams. If you're going to connect with everyone, why not > turn the whole web of connections into a financial ecology, one that > doesn't impact people in the same way that paying hundreds of dollars for > an operating system that crashes all the time does. > > Is this being done already? Actually, yes. Buy Jason Hunter's Servlets > book and you get the rights to use his source code in your projects. You > can even use that code in a commercial project, so long as everyone on the > team owns the latest copy of the book. (I confess, at this writing, I'm a > bit confused after reading the license--it's clear you can use the software > in commercial projects, but it's not clear you can actually sell the > product without further discussions with Hunter). Micropayments, indeed. > Also, you are not granted the right to distribute the source code. To get > the source code, you must buy the book. In some sense, paying, say $50 for > access to code that will save you far more than that amount if you use it > makes sense. > > Suppose, then, that we look at inheriting directly from GNU GPL, by, say, > adding some verbiage to it that takes advantage of the viral nature and > essentially does precisely what the license already does, with the added > proviso that distribution of derivative works implies the equivalent of > distribution of the "latest copy of the book" with it. Essentially, a > royalty stream. It's also known as MLM -- multilevel marketing (which has, > imho, a bad name owing to the observation that many folks involved in MLM > don't know anything about the products they are hustling; they're > apparently in it for the ride). > > Is this a disruptive idea? Probably. Is it an original idea? I already said > it isn't original. Who else is doing it? Google micropayments. > You'll likely land at Brad Cox's site, in which he discusses the whole > idea. Could it work? Maybe. How might it work? > > Consider this: I have this WikiWiki that serves as the backbone for plug in > Wikis. One of them does IBIS, one of them tries to mimic the Lucid Fried > Eggs program (see that program at http://www.memes.net), one of them serves > as a development and presentation platform for online courses, one of them > serves as an authoring and presentation platform for manuscripts (which I > happen to need in order to put my book _XML Topic Maps_ on the web). Two > others in the pipeline serve users directly ("MyWiki") and groups, and > enable construction of Web portals. Sounds like a lot of stuff. It is, > but, given the Wiki nature of things, it turns out that it's not too hard > to add features. What's unique? To start with, the entire Wiki universe > is version controlled at the "purple number" level, meaning paragraphs, > etc. Also, each "purple number" is really the URL of a "home page" for the > specific unit of information identified by the number. And, the homepage > is also a meeting grounds where anyone can go (click the "purple number) > and launch an IBIS discussion about that specific information object. The > homepage could also serve as a repository for backlinks that keep track of > where that object has been transcluded. Homepage also serves as access to > previous versions. Homepage is where new versions are created. Also, and > not the least, that page could be the launching ground for that which > ScholOnto is all about: building links between information > objects. Essentially, the project is information-object centric, with a > user interface that tries to make things easy. NexistWiki is > functional on my local net at home. It's now in a box to be taken online at > http://www.nexist.org as soon as I finish making apache and tomcat talk to > each other, but it is, by no means, completed, yet > > Having said all that, I am wondering how this project might be > published. My first thought was to write a book about it, include the > source code with the book, and give it a license similar to the one Jason > Hunter uses. More recent thinking involves generalizing that > approach. For that, I am reminded of the OpenDoc initiative started by > Apple, IBM, and others. In that space, an "object bus" somewhat akin to > Corba, was created such that anyone could publish widgets (e.g. > spreadsheets, word processors, etc) that seamlessly drop onto the > bus. Apple even went so far as to drop the "File" menu in favor of one > called "Document": click new and you got a new document, a canvas on which > you could drag and drop widgets that automatically settled into the > document; start with a word processor, drag out a spreadsheet when you need > it, drag in a graphics engine, whatever. For me, the appealing aspect was > that OpenDoc opened an entire financial ecosystem in which anyone could play. > > I think we can resurrect that ecosystem. That's the point of going public > with my thinking now. I think that something along the lines of the GNU > GPL could be harnessed to revive (not wreck) the software industry. Lofty > thought, that. To do so, I am thinking, in relation to my Wiki project, > that I could publish it with or without a book, but subject to some > micropayment system. The micropayment system is, in fact, a publishing > scheme by which authors that add value to the Wiki can put their "jar" > files into the catalog of widgets available. The beginnings of a small > financial ecosystem. Suppose, then, that this publishing mechanism sent a > bucket brigade of micropayments backward to those who contribute stuff > that's already free, like, to some consortium that improves Java, to the > Apache foundation, even to individuals who make great things (e.g. > TouchGraph). Beer money at first, perhaps a career eventually. Who knows. > > Summarizing, I think that I am doing nothing less than revising > OpenSourceThink. You buy (at some nominal cost) some software and you > still get the source code. You are free to revise it, fix it, > whatever. You are also responsible for playing within the constraints of > an ecosystem in which that software resides. You are also free to enhance > that ecosystem by dropping your additions back into the pool, laughing, I > suppose, all the way to the bank. > > Finally, I must tie this into the OHS thread, for that is what this list is > all about. Since I'm rethinking things, why not rethink Bootstrap Alliance > while I'm at it. What is the BA value proposition? I think the value > proposition resides in the possibility of taking Dr. Engelbart's vision to > the masses, with great potential to benefit humankind. Under that, > however, what is BA? Here, I am rethinkiing again. How many people > reading this are aware that Mcdonalds Corp is not a hamburger > company? Mcdonalds is a real estate investment company, but they have > "positioned" themselves, that is, their value proposition, resides in > hamburgers. The same kind of thinking could apply to BA. The value > proposition stands as is, but the entity, BA, could be a software > development firm, one that is the center of an entire financial ecosystem > comprised of people all over the world contributing enhancements to that > ecosystem, and thus, to humankind. Disruptive thought? Yup. > > Beginnings of a FAQ: > Q: Won't people ignore this and just steal the source code anyway? > A: Yup > > 'nough said for now. > Cheers! > Jack > > At 10:25 AM 5/13/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Johannes Ernst wrote: > > > Am I off-base here, or is there quite a can of worms hidden here > > > somewhere? Anyone ever looked at the patent portfolio of any of the > > > (particularly larger) companies that often release some of their own > > > code into the public domain? > > > >I am not a lawyer, but I am a twenty+ year software developer with an > >interest in copyright and patent legal issues, and it is my > >understanding that: > > > >1. You can release code under an open source license such as BSD (which > >does not reference patents) and then sue users of the code for patent > >infringement even if they are only using exactly the code you wrote. > >This is clearly unfriendly, and users might fight in court saying you > >gave them an implied license, but I think the author (patent holder) > >might win. Look at it this way, if you own a patent on an algorithm, > >like many "non-profits" do these days, > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm > > http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html > > http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html > >why not just release an explicitly public domain implementation and then > >say if someone wants to use the code, they must also pay to license the > >patent? > > > >The unfortunate thing about software patents is they imply having a > >copyright license to copy code in no way ensures you have all the > >licenses needed to run the code. Note that some especially greedy > >non-profits (or for-profits) try to double dip by charging separately > >both for patents and access to copyrighted implementations, but that's > >another story (they often try to also claim trade secrets in the > >copyrighted code as well to prevent discussing its shortcomings). > > > >2. Some licenses like the GPL explicitly say any referred patent will be > >licensed freely. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > > > Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. > > > We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will > > > individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program > > > proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent > > > must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. > >[Note: IIRC Richard Stallman says this can be read to say a patent only > >needs to cover free GPL implementations and can be otherwise enforced > >against others.] > > > >While one may or may not like the GPL's political stance on enforced > >sharing, this is one gotcha it it confronts up front -- contributors > >embedding patented algorithms to trap the unwary. Note that patents (and > >copyrights) unlike trademarks can be enforced at any time -- even after > >letting users slide by for years infringing the use of them (witness the > >current British Telecom effort to enforce a hyperlinking patent). > > http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,50398,00.html > > > >3. Note though, that if GPL'd code is found to unknowingly reference a > >patent that isn't freely licensed, the GPL says the code can't be > >redistributed by anyone. > > > > >From the GPL license text: > > > If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent > > infringement > > > or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are > > > imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that > > > contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from > > > the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy > > > simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent > > > obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program > > at all. > > > For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > > redistribution > > > of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or > > > indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and > > > this License would be to refrain entirely > > > from distribution of the Program. > > > >Contrast this with "permission to use". > > http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/permission.html > > > >One reading of "permission to use" would imply if you contribute any > >code to any Bootstrap effort you grant a license to Bootstrap and > >Stanford to use any software patents somehow referenced by the code > >however they see fit in any projects (including sublicensing to > >Microsoft). However, this license does not extend to any end users of > >your code or content (since "permission to use" just grants rights to > >Stanford and BI, not the end users). Note that if you don't own all > >patents referenced by your contributed code (say you put in hyperlinking > >code but don't have a worldwide license to BT's hyperlinking patent) > >then the indemnification clause of "permission to use" might be read to > >imply you need to pay Stanford or BI whatever it takes to make the > >patent holder happy (could be $billions for worldwide licensing rights, > >including all legal fees etc.). This is why I harp on the revision of > >"Permission to use" so that the Bootstrap OHS coding effort can move > >forward as "open source" or "free software", where contributors in the > >U.S.A. feel comfortable contributing given software patents. [Just > >rattling around as another Thursday CPC meetign has presumably came and > >went... ] > > > >Proposal: regarding patents, repeal "permission to use" and use the GPL > >license for the OHS project. Insist (only) that all contributors say > >their work is original, and that they have permission to contribute it > >from their employer if such is needed, and that they contribute the code > >under the GPL license. > > > >The old approach over the past two years isn't working to produce code. > >To paraprase an old TV commercial -- "Where the code?" > > > >Why isn't there any significant OHS code released through this > >colloquium? Perhaps, realistically, nobody who insists on a more > >permissive license (like BSD or Apache) because they have proprietary > >commercialization plans for OHS is likely to be going to do any work of > >this magnitude gratis anyway, and there are too many smooth talking > >(university) competitors for grant funds to pay people to do it > > http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ > >otherwise significant funds would have been here by now -- given the > >effort Doug (and others) have expended in beating the bushes. [Feel free > >to surprise me.] Yet, the "permission to use" policy has driven away the > >very peopel who might build a libre OHS gratis. If someone finally gets > >significant grants funds for an OHS, and it can be proprietary, the > >effort will probably just vanish in the noise of all the other ongoing > >proprietary KM efforts brought up by list participants. > > > >With Doug's visibility coupled to a GPL'd OHS implementation, the > >project might get somewhere faster. We could even have two competing > >projects -- an Apache version and a GPL'd version. I'd work on the GPL > >version. Sadly, "permission to use" directly blocks my own efforts in > >any public OHS direction involving the community of this list. It is > >very frustrating -- because I can't just say to this list "here is a > >GPL'd OHS project" without also writing a blank check to Stanford and > >BI. (I would if I could just to see the project go forward and Doug's > >vision realized, but I can't - and even if I could, I doubt my wife > >would approve. :-) > > > >Besides, I could not in good conscience convince any other person to > >contribute even one line of code under "permission to use" -- since even > >if I were willing to risk my entire financial future myself, I could not > >ask others to be so foolish given all the thousands of other open source > >or free software projects out there (many I first saw here) that touch > >on OHS issues and do not have such a problem. > > > >That is mainly why I stopped posting on this list -- to disassociate my > >efforts from any twisting of "permission to use". I post now in hopes > >this "permission to use" and patent license etc. issues can finally be > >resolved. Alternatively, can some lawyer or judge just declare > >"permission to use" invalid because it is a very broad agreement to hold > >if not signed (or at least the "extended" part) -- essentially becoming > >in effect like an overly broad non-compete agreement for any prudent > >person? > > > >Anyway, better things to do than be a broken record on this topic. If > >the "permission to use" issue as regards software patents and other > >things gets resolved someday (and Mei Lin wrote 1 May 2002 a discusion > >is in the works), fantastic -- and please let me know so I can > >contribute then. If not, this is the last I'll post on this "permission > >to use" indemnification issue, to avoid dragging down the other very > >positive aspects of this discussion forum (and myself in negativity). I > >learn much by following this list. I'm unfortunately still left in a > >quandry about whether posting on other issues here or unrev creates too > >much of an association of my other efforts (like the Pointrel Data > >Repository System) and "permission to use" and so the prudent thing on > >that basis is not to post (such as during most of the past year) until > >the issue is resolved. Whether I can contain myself given all the great > >discussions going on here remains to be seen. > > > >It's also saddening to see great contributors like Chris Dent and > >Kathryn La Barre > > http://ella.slis.indiana.edu./~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html > > http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~cjdent/unrev/index.cgi > >left twisting in the wind so long regarding a firm answer from BI or BA > >or Stanford on copyright issues for the email archives -- when the whole > >point of "permission to use" should be to at the very least make work > >such as theirs possible! So "permission to use" prevents my work here on > >code, but yet has produced no real benefit when it could, thus making it > >in practice the worst of both worlds. As I wrote before (April 30, 2002 > >on the unrev list), if the work can't be done pro-bono, I'll pledge > >US$300 towards legal fees for a lawyer to unravel this mess of > >"permission to use" to strike a better compromise for OHS coding > >volunteers and get Stanford and BI (or whoever) to sign off on it. > > > >-Paul Fernhout > >Kurtz-Fernhout Software > >========================================================= > >Developers of custom software and educational simulations > >Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator > >http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 15:58:17 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 11DCB56FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13303.mail.yahoo.com (web13303.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F17E56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020513231427.69613.qmail@web13303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.226.62] by web13303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:14:27 PDT Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:14:27 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source + patents = puzzled) To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack, > hyperlinking and > micropayment streams. If you're going to connect > with everyone, why not > turn the whole web of connections into a financial > ecology, one that > doesn't impact people in the same way that paying > hundreds of dollars for > an operating system that crashes all the time does. The GPL is not against making money. Software is free, you pay for time and services. Micropayment would be great for support and bug reports. You pay for support, companies buy qualified bug reports. Jobs for writing code are auctioned on an ebay like opensource work market. > > Consider this: I have this WikiWiki that serves as > the backbone for plug in > Wikis. Btw, do you use emacs for editing you wiki? I have usemod wikit installed, are wikis compatable? > ScholOnto is all about: building links between > information > objects. Question, do any of you have any tools to deal with huge amounts of graph data that has some semantic meaning? Graphs of computer programs? >Essentially, the project is > information-object centric, with a > user interface that tries to make things easy. If you have a user inteface... > with my thinking now. I think that something along > the lines of the GNU > GPL could be harnessed to revive (not wreck) the > software industry. In the times of need, GNU will become more and more popular. >Lofty > thought, that. To do so, I am thinking, in relation > to my Wiki project, > that I could publish it with or without a book, but > subject to some > micropayment system. There is the GNU documentation license, you might want to look into. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 16:03:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5425156FF6; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B88F956FF4 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1155-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.139]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9F72341A for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:20:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:21:34 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source +patents = puzzled) References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > So, I'm going to go public with some of my thinking along these > lines. [snip] Jack- Thanks for the insight into responses vs. answers. :-) I agree, and I don't think there are any easy answers, just hard choices. === on micropayments === I like your effort towards rethinking. I especially like your question at the end regarding the BA value proposition -- that is a good question to always revisit periodically for any effort expecting support. However, sorry, I don't think micropayments are the answer. See: "The Case Against Micropayments" http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html The article discusses several reasons, the biggest one is that the user cognitive overhead of dealing with micropayments is too high. A transaction might cost a fraction of a cent, but it costs you time and attention to think about it (even to decide whether to click or not, knowing you need to pay), and that makes every micropayment fundamentally expensive. The article also suggests several old alternatives (Aggregation, Subscription, and Subsidy) to micropayments. While you may be able to come up with a proprietary license which successfully implements a MLM scheme, I don't think anything you specify would ever be called "open source": http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html or "free software": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Another way to think of it is, have you ever had to get a large legal department to approve a software license? It can take weeks, even months to have a new one reviewed (even if it might only take an hour or so of a lawyer's actual time). Your new license will have to reviewed before people can use your work, perhaps effectively in practice rendering your work under it unusable. === on choice of licensing === Realistically there are three free licensing alternatives for the OHS: BSD, GPL, or something in the middle (Apache seems fairly close to the BSD end). I think things in the middle are usually too hard to think about in this case for too few benefits and there are too many choices, so I'd pick one end or the other, if for no other reason than wanting a license compatible with the GPL (which the BSD license now is). Essentially, for quicker adoption of standards and infrastructure at this point I might pick BSD-ish (e.g. Python) [if I don't fear Microsoft "embrace and extend"], http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html for applications I'd tend to pick GPL (e.g. a garden simulator). As I see OHS as more of an application at this point, GPL works for me for it. (Others might see it more as infrastructure to be rapidly adopted and might come to a different conclusion.) In any case, there can and will be multiple efforts under multiple licenses, although some perhaps may be more blessed by Bootstrap than others. I think that is the best way to look at it -- however "permission to use" indirectly prevents that from happening, by privileging Stanford and BI unduly and discouraging voluntary contributions of code for liability reasons. == a creative question === You obviously have a lot of creativity to deploy along this financial viability line. Perhaps for fun you could try working from this "extreme case" assumption: imagine I had delivered yesterday an OHS implementation that was GPL'd and was built to this specification: http://www.bootstrap.org/alliance-980.htm How could you or others make money off of it (respecting the GPL license)? [And if you feel the need to keep the answers proprietary, at least share the count of them or the likely revenue $$$...] If you can come up with enough plausible positive answers to that question of how to make money off of a GPL'd OHS system, then why not then GPL the OHS during the development phase, and dispense with the over-reaching "permission to use" for contributors? How much more value is a non-GPL'd OHS really providing you? And at what cost -- as there's possibly a lot of GPL-leaning developers working under Linux who might like to have a connection to a source of wisdom like Doug. === maybe you just wont make much money at it === As for your specific project ideas, while technically they sound fantastic, sorry maybe it won't make money for you directly to publish under the GPL. However, to be realistic, even publishing it in a book would probably not make more than the $10K or so typical advance for technical books. Most books seem to be authored to give the writer credibility in the field which translates to consulting revenues, grant funding, or employment. And dealing with book publishers and their "standard" contracts is a pain: http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/bookcontract.shtml Sorry, at this point, there is so much free code out there, and so much commercial (and free :-) stuff is buggy or incomplete garbage, I probably wouldn't bother buying a book just to use someone's servlets code. I buy books generally when I'm already using the code. In fact, I've stopped considering code in books as a valuable feature when I realized I can't typically use it in an arbitrary project -- so I could never make a proprietary project with a snippet of code from a typical programming book open source down the road, and I can't use it in consulting either typically. By the way, ask Jason Hunter if he's made over $100K from his book (enough return to think about putting a year into developing software) -- I bet the answer is no. So all he may have done is ensure most people can't use his code. What a loss. Maybe if I had seen his code in use, and started using it myself, I might have bought his book, like I have bought books on Python after using it some, Linux after using it some, CVS after using it some, HTML after using it some, C after learning it using a borrowed book, and so on. Perhaps Jason Hunter is a special case and his effort is profitable, but then I would bet his publisher invested heavily in him, and he has personal attributes and a drive that would have made whatever route he took a success. Also, ask yourself, if you are offering code for money, will you feel compelled to answer your support email every day? My wife and I sell some software through the shareware marketing method, and even though it brings in at most a few hundreds of dollars a month (in a good month) which is a very good return for shareware, for this we have to pay the price of checking email every day to handle orders, and guilt if we don't answer support emails right away. Plus we need to look at all sorts of spam (such as without titles or with vague headings) because people sometimes ask for support with not very good email subject headers. Plus you have an up and down emotional rollercoaster for all sorts of other reasons. In our case, for our most financially successful product, a "non-profit" competitor tried to grab our trademark and registered a domain with our product name (costing us thousands in legal fees out of honor more than feasible profit from winning, which we did). Clearly the emotional and time costs to us of running a small software business have turned out to be much more than any money we can hope to make from it at this point. And all this is exclusive of time spent on the product itself. Yet, we have had every intention of making a profit on it, and we have continued to sell the product perhaps partly in hope of striking it rich in one big swoop (like when a major software company called to talk with us, and then unfortunately reorganized) or thinking the next version might be the one that sells 20X better. So, when you add up all these costs vs. benefits, there may not be much profit in your venture as a proprietary thing when you look at it as an entire business venture. Essentially, selling software is rarely extremely profitable anymore, and probably never was except for some lucky few business application specialists. Now rare can still mean thousands of success stories that can be pointed to (out of millions of tries), but the odds are nonetheless wildly against you. On the other hand, people have paid lots to us on a regular and repeatable basis for focusing our attention on their specific issues and needs, just like people pay lawyers and doctors a lot for the same privilege. And, there are people making big dollars working on software like our successful projects -- they are just working as techies at Pixar or LucasFilms or DreamWorks and the works as used on specific films to achieve specific emotional effects -- so essentially these people are making money from consulting (I doubt the proprietary software holdings of these production companies will ever produce much revenue for them compared to the investment though -- but it doesn't matter because the money is made on the film.) One reason software doesn't make so much money these days is there is really too much of it. I've often though the software world would be better off if 90% of people left the profession (since most programmers mainly make work for each other, and create painful code to maintain -- see "the mythical man month" on communications overhead etc.). Programming is a world where there are over 100X orders of magnitude in individual productivities (and where individuals can also easily have negative productivity in non-obvious ways) and where many or most projects fail in a significant way (compared to say bridge building). And how many of each type of application does one really need? HOw many spreadsheets or wordprocessors or OHS systems? One hopes to make money on the new thing, but how many new things can there be long term? What we need is less code, not more. Less versions of Windows and Office, not more. My biggest beef against most systems I look at is they are just way too bloated and my first desire is to make them lighter. Think about lawn care companies -- most of the money is in cutting grass, not putting it in. If lawn care companies got judged for height of grass (like programmers getting judged for lines of code) we'd all be living in jungles. Well, you know what, we are living in a software jungle. :-) And maybe the money is in selling and using machetes. That's not to say I don't think new code isn't needed sometimes -- if for no other reason than the license (proprietary) is not right for current needs. An unfortunate corollary of this would be am implosion in tech stock market values. (Oops, that happened already didn't it? Might be more to come then for current companies -- unless like IBM they transition more to a services model.) === maybe a profit doesn't matter for this particular project === Philip Greenspun's take on making money on the web: http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/dead-trees/53002.htm "Anyway, the response from my new acquaintances is invariably the same: "How are you going to make money off your Web site?" ... If they knew I'd splurged for a $5000 Viking stove, they wouldn't ask if I was going to start charging my brunch guests $5 each. If I told them I dropped $20,000 on a Dodge Caravan, they wouldn't ask if I was going to charge my dog $10 for every trip. " === maybe you already have or will make a profit === Another way to look at it is, the payment you get for free software and content you write is all the other free software and content others write. If you look at it on this basis, any investment spent making free content and software is enormously repaid. The six person-years my wife and I put into making a GPL'd garden simulator have been repaid a thousand times over by getting GCC, Emacs, Apache, Python, and other software and content (like this mailing list) and the whole world wide web in return. You can also chalk up free software contributions to the same social networking that happens when you volunteer at the local ACM or Rotary chapter. You can also ask yourself (and your lawyer), how are lawyers paid so well when the law is essentially public domain? Would we be better off if laws were copyrighted by their proposers, judges decisions by the judge, and evidence by the prosecution? Maybe then lawyers and judges would be paid even better and justice would be quicker and fairer? One last comment, 90%+ of IT dollars are spent inhouse on requirements gathering, analysis, testing, customization, security, and training. (Don't have a link for that, but I've read it several places -- exact percentage may be off, might be even 95%.) === perspective rant on deeper issue behind licensing discussion ==== There's a fundamental unspoken assumption in most copyright and patent discussions that: A) content needs to be paid for to be created and is thus always a financial investment, and B) content needs to be paid for to be distributed, otherwise no one will see it. Both of these assumptions are no longer true given the partial success so far of the Unfinished Revolution. Here's my perspective. In the best of circumstances, if some vested interest like RIAA give ground gracefully or elected official have backbone like David Villanueva Nuñez of Peru, http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25157.html we have the chance to transition to an age of abundance for many material and digital things (there will may never be enough of some social things like parental attention split among siblings). The issue is, how do we make a peaceful transition from where we are now to the worlds of material abundance described in James P. Hogan's novel "Voyage from Yesteryear" or Theodore Sturgeon's short story "The Skills of Xanadu" or in Neal Stephenson's (darker) novel "The Diamond Age"? And then to make it personal, how do "I" make such a transition in my own life? I feel it's OK to have one foot in both worlds for a while (like doing some paid work and some free work) if you think that ultimately the system is ratcheting itself up to a higher level of functioning as long as we all slowly adapt as a society, just like environmental issues are now becoming much more accepted slowly as an important consideration in designing industrial processes. However, having said that, I think it is hard for specific projects to have one foot in both worlds (like a license that is "sort of" free). Usually I think it might be best to have two separate but perhaps complementary projects if that is the intent. Alas, that is in the best of all possible worlds, and I think it quite possible this will be a shooting war in a decade or two, just like the drug war grew out of control into a shooting war driven by the perhaps unintentional synching of the interests of large drug dealers (to reduce competition) with the interests of drug policy enforcers (to keep their jobs and gain promotion). Even if the drug war recedes, the fact that it went on for decades is a tribute to these strange social forces involving feedback driving the legal & political system to such negative policies and to the point where, for example, U.S. judges criticize the drug war policies in private but not public [see Reason article mentioned below]. Again, James P. Hogan's novel has some good advice on how to win such a shooting war over copyrights and patents (mainly by showing people a better way and giving them better opportunities, one person at a time). Just like the drug war has damaged unduly whole segments of US society and promoted corruption and, worse, cynicism among the police, http://reason.com/0201/fe.ml.battlefield.shtml the potential for abuses created by DMCA and other proposals is enormous. http://libertyboard.org/ http://www.eff.org/ >From the Reason article, just to see where these things go: "I was involved as an expert witness in the Donald Carlson case, which was on 60 Minutes. In that case, a multi-agency task force, outfitted in high-tech guerrilla gear, crashed into the home of a Fortune 500 executive and shot him down in his own living room on the basis of the word of an uncorroborated informant. Nobody was penalized for it. In fact, the people who did it were eventually promoted." Do we want to work toward a world where this is likely to happen over a (paid) informant tip off about illicitly copied proprietary OHS code? My point -- ultimately the only way copyright and patents can be enforced to the extent they are being made into business models these days is through the coercive use of police power such as Stalinist Russia used to prevent "Samizdat", making such "accidents" as befell Donald Carlson certainties, with selective enforcement used to control dissent, and essentially criminalizing much of human behavior down to ignoring TV advertising when you go to the bathroom: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020509_sprigman.html >From a Richard Stallman interview: http://www.memes.net/index.php3?request=displaypage&NodeID=650 > The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this. The Soviet > Union treated it as very important. There this unauthorized copying and > re-distribution was known as Samizdat and to stamp it out, they developed a > series of methods: First, guards watching every piece of copying equipment to > check what people were copying to prevent forbidden copying. Second, harsh > punishments for anyone caught doing forbidden copying. You could sent to > Siberia. Third, soliciting informers, asking everyone to rat on their neighbors > and co-workers to the information police. Fourth, collective responsibility – > You! You’re going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden > copying, you are going to prison. So watch them hard. And, fifth, propaganda, > starting in childhood to convince everyone that only a horrible enemy of the > people would ever do this forbidden copying. ... The U.S. is using all of > these measures now. The bottom line: these copyright and patents laws and enforcement are growing so out of synch with how people view information and have handled it traditionally through storytelling and sharing that such draconian laws cannot ultimately be compatible with a just and fair society. Overly restrictive laws promote disrespect for the laws as happened with marijuana in the 1970s and 1980s and is happening now with MP3s. See this speech written in 1841 by Thomas Babbington Macaulaon which "became the basis of copyright policies in the English speaking world for well over a hundred years": http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329 Why should a public OHS effort done by volunteers be part of increasing oppression? Make whatever compromise decisions you need to make as an employee of a corporation to survive personally for the short term, but as a person, as an individual, make some room for freedom for you and the next generation too. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Kids will have a tough enough time knowing that according to Moore's law & Kurzweil & Moravec most current jobs might be filled by AI and robots in 20-30 years time. At least let them have a free OHS to plan their survival in style. == final comment === Doug drew us here via UnRevII to make an "open source" open hyperdocument system (OHS) That's been clear from the start. That's what we should make. That's what I want to make. People here can make other proprietary things for whatever reasons, fine, but we should make at least one open source OHS. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 16:05:32 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2CAC656FF9; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13304.mail.yahoo.com (web13304.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.40]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B9E5656FF6 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020513232142.78462.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.225.50] by web13304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:21:42 PDT Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source +patents = puzzled) To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE03D61.AB19E584@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org You are trying to abstract a pricing system. Price = f(supply,demand) > * Any API you use would receive a fractional > percent of the > revenue, based on the contribution of that API > to the whole. The cost to buy > * The API's "contribution" would have to be > factored with > respect to relative size and the total count of > APIs in the > system. The cost to sell. > > I think the negotiation / determination of relative > value is the > trickiest proposition -- as is the need to move > revenues through > the system, so they are automatically distributed to > contributors. You need a market place, buying and selling code, people publish problems and what they will pay. people publish standard solutions and what they want. > > Then there is the need to know in advance how much > of the > revenue will be diverted, so you can set the pricing > properly. You need a maket. ebay. > But those are mostly mechanical details. The devil is in the details. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 16:21:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 59C2A56FF7; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5D5856FF3 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24518 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4DNb7W15809 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE04E23.9AD710FD@sun.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:37:08 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source +patents = puzzled) References: <20020513232142.78462.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > You are trying to abstract a pricing system. > Price = f(supply,demand) > > > * Any API you use would receive a fractional > > percent of the > > revenue, based on the contribution of that API > > to the whole. > The cost to buy > > > * The API's "contribution" would have to be > > factored with > > respect to relative size and the total count of > > APIs in the > > system. > The cost to sell. > > > > > I think the negotiation / determination of relative > > value is the > > trickiest proposition -- as is the need to move > > revenues through > > the system, so they are automatically distributed to > > contributors. > You need a market place, buying and selling code, > people publish problems and what they will pay. > people publish standard solutions and what they want. That makes sense. > > But those are mostly mechanical details. > > The devil is in the details. Yup. But technical details I know I can solve. Social details are much more of a mystery. Seems to require a lot more faith. :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 16:38:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 59AB856FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C878256FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15123; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:54:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4DNsVW19123; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE05238.C0F3947A@sun.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:54:32 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, hm Subject: Re: Rethinking Licensing (was Re: [ba-ohs-talk] open source +patents = puzzled) References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul Fernhout wrote: > === on micropayments === > > I like your effort towards rethinking. I especially like your question > at the end regarding the BA value proposition -- that is a good question > to always revisit periodically for any effort expecting support. > > However, sorry, I don't think micropayments are the answer. See: > "The Case Against Micropayments" > http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html > The article discusses several reasons, the biggest one is that the user > cognitive overhead of dealing with micropayments is too high. A > transaction might cost a fraction of a cent, but it costs you time and > attention to think about it (even to decide whether to click or not, > knowing you need to pay), and that makes every micropayment > fundamentally expensive. The article also suggests several old > alternatives (Aggregation, Subscription, and Subsidy) to micropayments. When micropayments revolve around *use*, I agree that they are doomed. No way do I ever agree to have something around that is going to keep charging me forever. The main issue is that I have no control of my expenses, because I can't keep track of all the little things that are nailing me all the time. But when micropayments consist of revenue-sharing -- so that they only occur when a purchase decision is made, they have a chance of succeeding. In that case, the end-user never even knows about them. Done right, the seller can even afford to ignore them, because some fraction of revenues are diverted as royalties before the income is even seen. Assuming that the parameters are acceptable beforehand (for example: 10% of whatever I charge is going to the 10 or 100 developers of the APIs I use) then I don't particulary need to know or care to know how those royalties are divided. I just know I'm getting 90% of whatever I charge, and things are relatively simple. That kind of situation turns each of us into a "publisher" who generates some code on our own while incorporating other code. Any time we sell something, we pay royalties. If we give it away, then it goes out for free. There is still a lot of room in this equation for problems to arise, though. For example, developer of Module XYZ may require that: a) You can't sell any product that uses it. b) You can't give away any product that uses it. c) If you sell it, it gets 1% of the revenues, regardless of how much you charge. d) If you sell it, it gets $10 a pop, regardless of what you charge. e) If you sell it, it gets 1% or $10, whichever is greater. f) If you sell it, it gets 1% or $10, whichever is less. g) You have to charge at least $x for any product which uses it. All of these options affect how widely the module will be used, and how much revenue it may generate. Figuring out the best strategy for the module developer is something that requires thought. By the same token, the integrator needs to figure out their best strategy, too, based on the availability, functionality, reliability, and pricing of various modules at their disposal. This is basically SW development as it occurs today, only with automated revenue sharing that is confined to the point of transaction. Such micropayments would not only be acceptable, but also highly conducive to code sharing and reuse. Stuff would basically be free for use, but anytime you managed to make a buck, people who developed code you use would get a bit. That would provide both incentive and the wherewithal to do more. If such a marketplace provided the means for making software available, then a developer could spend less time thinking about the mechanics of distribution, and more time thinking about their designs, which would also be to the good. It would help to promote cottage industries, because it would reduce much of the staff you need to carry on a business. (Support and marketing staff would still be needed, but sales and distribution staff could be largely eliminated.) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 17:44:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C816556FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AA8D56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.130]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020514010025.EHCI28858.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 21:00:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3CE0621D.CA03E7F3@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:02:21 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] [Fwd: 80% of Your Corporate Data is Not in the CRM System] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4DE99DFA3A789DCFBE092633" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4DE99DFA3A789DCFBE092633 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------4DE99DFA3A789DCFBE092633 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from widget.mirrorworlds.com ([216.153.150.55]) by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020513230702.HRYT23387.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@widget.mirrorworlds.com> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:07:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by widget.mirrorworlds.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:08:46 -0400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Received: from netra.mirrorworlds.com ([216.153.150.60]) by widget.mirrorworlds.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 13 May 2002 19:08:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from 192.168.1.41 (MYSTIQUE [192.168.1.41]) by netra.mirrorworlds.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id K66QN457; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:28:21 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 From: "Scopeware" To: Subject: 80% of Your Corporate Data is Not in the CRM System Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:28:50 -0400 X-Mailer: Mach5 Mailer-2.50 PID{e9bf1a68-b341-4877-a953-3c3e9432ce2e} RC{R01091839281} Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2002 23:08:30.0521 (UTC) FILETIME=[18DC2A90:01C1FAD3] X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Scopeware - The Simple, Elegant Knowledge Management Solution
     
     
   
   
   
     
 

You're invited to a FREE Webinar:
Completing the 360° View of Your Customers

 
     
 

This free webinar will educate you on the untapped potential of unstructured data, and introduce you to Scopeware, a powerful tool that can help you organize, and leverage unstructured data into a valuable enterprise asset. Low cost, with an easy-to-use patented interface, it can be rapidly deployed and deliver incredible value in just 24 Hours.

  When: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 or Wednesday, June 12, 2002
  Location: Your office via the Internet
  Time: 10 AM EST or 2 PM EST

Click Here to Register Today.

 
     
www.scopeware.com | Toll Free: 877-319-4607 | Contact Us
--------------4DE99DFA3A789DCFBE092633-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 18:28:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5EB8456FF4; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D4FB56FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020514014414.TPJL25765.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony>; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:44:14 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:39:20 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing Cc: ilc-dev@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE05238.C0F3947A@sun.com> References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org As always, I toss out a few crumbs and Paul ships back a loaf of well-baked bread. And, then, Eric steps in with an interpretation of my crumbs that's much closer to my view that is Paul's interpretation. I may have created the opportunity for misinterpretation myself by using the term 'micropayment' which, as I understand the origins of the transclusion process, was, indeed, a *per-use* charge, with all the attendant concern about costs and so forth. Indeed, I wasn't thinking about that particular brand of micropayment, rather something much closer to what Jason Hunter does and which Eric describes below. The software is free; essentially take it and have fun with it, learn what you can, and so forth. But, there is this simple financial incentive to "join the club" and add value to it. I did not intend that there be an interpretation of my thoughts that each click would cost something, though I think I can see how that interpretation got license. At no time am I attempting to add a cost to the OHS. But, at the same time, I am, in some sense, stepping back from the '*open source* concept and moving in the direction of the *free software* movement, but with the twist that my *free software* is always free until you decide to sell it, at which time, I'd like a tiny fee for each copy and I'll share that revenue with those who have made my work possible. I might even be willing to negotiate volume discounts, and so forth. My motivations are related to my experience working with kids in high school in a Java programming course. I tend to think that if kids saw a nearer-term opportunity to turn their work into beer soda money, they might take the learning exercise more seriously. My motivations are also related to my personal desire to take OHS-like technology to the world's classrooms, naturally, by way of the Web. There needs to be a way to turn that activity at once into a value proposition (online courseware in which kids all over the world can share in projects) and a financial proposition (opportunity to distribute software within a revenue generating system). Paul's comments on having licenses evaluated, on securing 'buy-in' by those you really need to buy in, are well taken. My hunch is, however, that the GNU Linux experience making it into enterprise and into schools shows that such things are possible, particularly if there is a need. The school with which I am involved has a CTO who is MS-certified, so cracking that entity is only going to happen when MS stops giving away their product or vendors slow down on the massive discounts, and the school finally has to pay the true license costs associated with the number of copies of Office they are using; the bean counters may yet prevail. Hard to tell, however. Eric's comment that this scheme turns each of us into a publisher nails it. That, I think, can serve as a foundation for a financial ecosystem. To explore that notion a bit, consider that I happen to sell widget A and, no matter what you sell A+B (where B is your widget that uses A), I want, say, $1 for A. Theoretically thinking, your widget B could be the one widget that everyone wants and you get to sell it for $500. I still get my $1, and I'll pass some portion of that along to those who made my work possible. In theory, you will do same in your accounting process. And, I imagine that if your marketing projections suggest that you expect to sell a million of your widgets, I should expect you to come and start arguing for a reduction in my $1 fee. Frankly, I'd like to have such *problems*. Don't know if that cleared anything up. Hope not. Cheers Jack At 04:54 PM 5/13/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Paul Fernhout wrote: > > > === on micropayments === > > > > I like your effort towards rethinking. I especially like your question > > at the end regarding the BA value proposition -- that is a good question > > to always revisit periodically for any effort expecting support. > > > > However, sorry, I don't think micropayments are the answer. See: > > "The Case Against Micropayments" > > http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html > > The article discusses several reasons, the biggest one is that the user > > cognitive overhead of dealing with micropayments is too high. A > > transaction might cost a fraction of a cent, but it costs you time and > > attention to think about it (even to decide whether to click or not, > > knowing you need to pay), and that makes every micropayment > > fundamentally expensive. The article also suggests several old > > alternatives (Aggregation, Subscription, and Subsidy) to micropayments. > >When micropayments revolve around *use*, I agree that they are >doomed. No way do I ever agree to have something around that is >going to keep charging me forever. The main issue is that I have no >control of my expenses, because I can't keep track of all the little >things that are nailing me all the time. > >But when micropayments consist of revenue-sharing -- so that they >only occur when a purchase decision is made, they have a chance >of succeeding. > >In that case, the end-user never even knows about them. Done right, >the seller can even afford to ignore them, because some fraction of >revenues are diverted as royalties before the income is even seen. > >Assuming that the parameters are acceptable beforehand (for example: >10% of whatever I charge is going to the 10 or 100 developers of the >APIs I use) then I don't particulary need to know or care to know how >those royalties are divided. I just know I'm getting 90% of whatever I >charge, and things are relatively simple. > >That kind of situation turns each of us into a "publisher" who generates >some code on our own while incorporating other code. Any time we >sell something, we pay royalties. If we give it away, then it goes out for >free. > >There is still a lot of room in this equation for problems to arise, though. >For example, developer of Module XYZ may require that: > a) You can't sell any product that uses it. > b) You can't give away any product that uses it. > c) If you sell it, it gets 1% of the revenues, regardless of how > much you charge. > d) If you sell it, it gets $10 a pop, regardless of what you charge. > e) If you sell it, it gets 1% or $10, whichever is greater. > f) If you sell it, it gets 1% or $10, whichever is less. > g) You have to charge at least $x for any product which uses it. > >All of these options affect how widely the module will be used, and >how much revenue it may generate. Figuring out the best strategy >for the module developer is something that requires thought. > >By the same token, the integrator needs to figure out their best >strategy, too, based on the availability, functionality, reliability, >and pricing of various modules at their disposal. > >This is basically SW development as it occurs today, only with >automated revenue sharing that is confined to the point of transaction. > >Such micropayments would not only be acceptable, but also highly >conducive to code sharing and reuse. Stuff would basically be free >for use, but anytime you managed to make a buck, people who >developed code you use would get a bit. That would provide >both incentive and the wherewithal to do more. > >If such a marketplace provided the means for making software >available, then a developer could spend less time thinking about >the mechanics of distribution, and more time thinking about their >designs, which would also be to the good. It would help to >promote cottage industries, because it would reduce much of the >staff you need to carry on a business. (Support and marketing >staff would still be needed, but sales and distribution staff could >be largely eliminated.) > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 19:03:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id F24E356FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 66DDF56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-464-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.2.210]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836C3233E1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 21:20:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE074B2.60FCCA4D@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:21:38 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Slashdot: Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Couldn't resist -- just saw this and thought about about the risk to volunteers from the colloquiums "permission to use" indemnification clause from something as simple as putting up a web page these days... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/13/1914221&mode=thread&tid=155&threshold=2 > "I work for a small plumbing, heating, > irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built > up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many > products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as > PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To > the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, > they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a > method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they > invented the use of a form to enter customer information. > Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! > However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other > small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope > that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately > remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to > bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue > this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may > become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under > their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." So any volunteer creating a website with text and images related to UnRevII or OHS and in any way conceivably used commercially by BI or Stanford under "permission to use" might want to just get out their checkbooks now to write a nice big $30K check to each of Stanford and BI preemptively for when PanIP comes a knockin' :-) (unless you also want to pay BIs and Bootstraps legal fees before they settle anyway as you have no choice in their course of defense). Let's see -- together that's $60K, so any BI volunteer who has owned a house for a decade or so might want to cough that up preferentially to bankruptcy. A bit painful though. I hope this patent won't also be construed to apply to these emails being posted as web pages on BI's email archives? Maybe everyone on the list can kick in a few grand so we can start a preemptive defense fund to pay Stanford or BI in such a case? The point isn't that such patents are valid or invalid (though obviously it's probably bogus with prior art) -- but the cost of fighting such a threatened lawsuits if you are being shaken down (even to ask a patent lawyer to just evaluate the situation for a coupel of hours) may be high and you have no choice in whether BI or Stanford decides to settle. Sadly, regardless of "permission to use" being resolved, in the U.S. this software patent thing is probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better... And the risk is higher in some ways for open source work because the operation is more open to inspection and thus charges of patent infringement can be made more easily. To turn "permission to use" on its head, perhaps BI and Stanford could figure out a way to indemnify all volunteers worldwide for work done on any open source OHS-like systems in good faith -- such as by obtaining extensive comprehensive E&O insurance (as opposed to the current state of indemnification the other way around) if such can be had -- say for a few million dollars a year? Or at least, they could pledge a few million in trust to come to the legal defense of accused volunteer developers of OHS like systems anywhere in the world? That's one action that would ease my mind when working in this field. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 20:48:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DD41A56FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 20:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04B8D56FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 20:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1025-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.9]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566332356E for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 23:05:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:06:13 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > I may have created the opportunity for misinterpretation myself by using > the term 'micropayment' which, as I understand the origins of the > transclusion process, was, indeed, a *per-use* charge, with all the > attendant concern about costs and so forth. Indeed, I wasn't thinking > about that particular brand of micropayment, rather something much closer > to what Jason Hunter does and which Eric describes below. The software is > free; essentially take it and have fun with it, learn what you can, and so > forth. But, there is this simple financial incentive to "join the club" > and add value to it. I did not intend that there be an interpretation of my > thoughts that each click would cost something, though I think I can see how > that interpretation got license. Sorry if I misinterpreted. I just looked at: http://www.servlets.com/index.tea but I still don't see the business model there. I think I am missing something here as well as in understanding Eric's point. At some point, these plans require someone to make a purchasing decision, right? And at that point, the overhead of the financial system may become a conceptual burden as the purchaser thinks about whether to pay or not. Maybe you're talking about purchases of material goods and the developers of the web site kicking back some money when someone buys a football? I can see how that isn't the same thing as a conventional micropayment, except that the end software developers might always just choose not to use your code anyway. Still people do reuse code, but your system will have to compete against existing frameworks (like WebSphere etc.) And, after all, software is a bit like clay, and once you've learned to sculpt, do you really need lots of molds and premade clay pieces? Chuck Moore rebuilt pretty much every new Forth system from scratch. Many of these systems are built using some open framework and some custom code. Are you really going to beat what other proprietary stuff is out there right now? Why waste your creativity on that? If you're reinventing, at least reinvent freedom. > At no time am I attempting to add a cost to the OHS. But, at the same > time, I am, in some sense, stepping back from the '*open source* concept > and moving in the direction of the *free software* movement, but with the > twist that my *free software* is always free until you decide to sell it, > at which time, I'd like a tiny fee for each copy and I'll share that > revenue with those who have made my work possible. I might even be willing > to negotiate volume discounts, and so forth. But the overhead of all this negotiation etc. could be quite high. Example, big companies don't buy much shareware (and thus supposedly don't use it intentionally) because it is too much trouble to pay for it given their accounting systems. (Individuals figure out tricks like to bundle it into trip expenses, but these are kludges...) I've read of MLM schemes breaking down as the complexity of managing royalty payments to so many people becomes unwieldy. How do you even know where to send the checks? I guess the internet makes some of this potentially easier, but you'd need a totally structured development environment for the software case tracking every use of every piece of code -- probably one too rigid for my tastes. It's not all that easy to determine derived works -- what if a person wants to merge two functions from different vendors? Or split one into two parts? The overhead of this system may rapidly cost much more than any authors are making. At that point, then everyone should just work for a big company (or the government) and get salaries... > My motivations are related to my experience working with kids in high > school in a Java programming course. I tend to think that if kids saw a > nearer-term opportunity to turn their work into beer soda > money, they might take the learning exercise more seriously. See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain ... In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top students get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get raises. It's an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote better performance. But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance involves creativity. " > Paul's comments on having licenses evaluated, on securing 'buy-in' by those > you really need to buy in, are well taken. My hunch is, however, that the > GNU Linux experience making it into enterprise and into schools shows that > such things are possible, particularly if there is a need. The school with > which I am involved has a CTO who is MS-certified, so cracking that entity > is only going to happen when MS stops giving away their product or vendors > slow down on the massive discounts, and the school finally has to pay the > true license costs associated with the number of copies of Office they are See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/22/1719218&mode=thread > As reported in this article in the > Portland, OR newspaper, The Oregonian, Microsoft > is pressuring 24 school districts in the northwest to agree to their > Microsoft School Agreement licensing scheme or undergo an audit > in 60 days. Multnomah ESD, which covers the greater Portland > area and has around 25,000 computers, has to either decide to > accept the license at about $500,000 or undergo the audit which it > does not have time to prepare for. Of significant interest is the fact > that a significant majority of these schools are experimenting with > using Linux. Multnomah ESD has its own thin-client Linux distro > called K12LTSP." and the followup: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/10/1752243&mode=thread Let's see, perhaps someone should set up an organization to adopt this strategy for raising money for free software development: Employees of this organization would cosy up to school officials, teachers, and students, find a reason to think the school district have even one unpaid license of any Microsoft product, and turn them in to Microsoft for part of the money, pushing their way in with the police to gather evidence. Then the organization makes money to support grants to free software developers, and schools get forced to eventually turn to free software out of prudence. Oops, we already have a similar organization that sort of does this, except they don't make such grants (just keeping money for themselves and perhaps giving some to members): http://www.spa.org/ Not that I'd do this myself as it would be mean and I believe antisocial... But this place will pay up to £10,000 a pop for copyright infringers: http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/ I remember in high school social studies class a big thing being made somehow (racistly? nationalistically?) about how in Soviet countries and Cuba the cultural valued people turning in their friends and family for wrong thinking and this allowed dictatorships, but in America that could never happen because people, especially families and neighbors, stuck together. Well, that reward is for the UK, but I think there are similar financial temptations here like with unleashing the SPA on people who share. I can think of numerous companies with at least one license somewhere possibly out of compliance across thousands of machines. Why, just the other day I was in a store listening to pleasant music playing from a CD changer they had and it occurred to me I could turn them in to RIAA and maybe get a bounty as chances were they weren't paying performance royalties or keeping a playlist. Luckily I don't think it is yet a crime for me not to turn them in. Would I anyway just for the money? No. But someone else might. And someday someone will -- and they might earn money for it. And laws are imposing more and more criminal penalties for copyright violations, so that storeowner might someday soon do a little jail time too. Easy way for kids to make beer or soda money you suggested above once they figure it out -- just turn in their own teachers and principals to Microsoft or the SPA (perhaps if they are mean after framing them if nothing obvious presents itself). Nice way to get a problem teacher off their back and into prison if the laws change just a little bit more and possibly even now (and so much easier to prove and less embarrassing to report than other accusations). Just one Microsoft CD slipped into classroom and out again -- and there is soon money in the piggy bank and icky Teacher Smith is suspended. Great way to get kids started on a career in a police state and with a nice nest egg for paying for those proprietary e-books needed in a likely future college education. One of the most horrible Star Trek:TNG episodes for me is where Picard is graphically tortured by a person who lets his little daughter watch, the torturer saying it is good for her to learn such things. Picard replies something like, be careful about teaching your children to hate others, because they might direct it against their parents someday. Well, be careful about creating situations where children learn to make easy money being snitches and framers, and where they are taught how sensible it is to hoard information that costs them nothing to share. OK, so why not teach kids from day one about charging for sharing so they are better able to cope in the future world? Better outlaw bringing in cookies for the class too -- sets a bad example you know. Obviously I'm being sarcastic here -- since as Richard Stallman points out, sharing is the fundamental basis of human society. Mess with that, and you'll produce a disaster. > Eric's comment that this scheme turns each of us into a publisher nails > it. That, I think, can serve as a foundation for a financial ecosystem. To > explore that notion a bit, consider that I happen to sell widget A and, no > matter what you sell A+B (where B is your widget that uses A), I want, say, > $1 for A. Theoretically thinking, your widget B could be the one widget > that everyone wants and you get to sell it for $500. I still get my $1, > and I'll pass some portion of that along to those who made my work > possible. In theory, you will do same in your accounting process. And, I > imagine that if your marketing projections suggest that you expect to sell > a million of your widgets, I should expect you to come and start arguing > for a reduction in my $1 fee. Frankly, I'd like to have such *problems*. In your example, what if I wanted to make a 1/2A+C? Or translate A to Swahili and distribute it for free in printed documentation to refugees? Or what if I got a new development environment and want to use your code in it outside the system you expect me to use -- do you then want to audit my business and see my customer list? I don't use the best cross-platform software development environment I know of -- VisualWorks --in part because of this audit requirement, and that after having paid them about $9000 years ago for a license to a pre-runtime fee version that now doesn't run right on the latest Microsoft OSs. Sorry, I've paid enough for proprietary software with various restrictions and privacy invasions, no matter how good it is. I'll have some of the free stuff like more Python, please. If you want to make the point, maybe there could be a specific detailed example with a realish-product related to software outlined with transactions involving ten authors (A-J) and a few purchasers (P-R)? But frankly, I don't think you're going to persuade me -- because the big issue is "free as in freedom" -- and any such system is probably going to involve many unfree aspects. Why should I help you do this? -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 21:40:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 748B956FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 21:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3636756FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 21:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020514045641.CNXN25765.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony> for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 04:56:41 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020513215252.00dd5250@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:54:16 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [argumap] Englebart on argument mapping, circa 1962 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >To: argumap@yahoogroups.com >From: Tim van Gelder > > >I was recently alerted to Douglas Englebart's pioneering work in >intelligence augmentation through argument mapping (or at least, the >envisioning thereof). > >The relevant source is a (lengthy) tech report > >http://www.histech.rwth-aachen.de/www/quellen/engelbart/ahi62index.html > >and for argument mapping see especially the section on structuring an >argument: > >http://www.histech.rwth-aachen.de/www/quellen/engelbart/3examples.html#B.4 > >though there is a lot of very interesting stuff elsewhere in the report. > >It seems Englebart not only imagined the kinds of systems we're developing >today, but could see beyond them. > >The website for Engelbart fans is the Bootstrap Institute: >http://www.bootstrap.org/ > >- Tim v.G. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 13 22:58:09 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B88D156FF3; Mon, 13 May 2002 22:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 51A5256FF2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 22:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28181 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 23:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4E6EBW06602 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 23:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:14:12 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul Fernhout wrote: > JBut the overhead of all this negotiation etc. could be quite high. > Example, big companies don't buy much shareware (and thus supposedly > don't use it intentionally) because it is too much trouble to pay for it > given their accounting systems. (Individuals figure out tricks like to > bundle it into trip expenses, but these are kludges...) I've read of MLM > schemes breaking down as the complexity of managing royalty payments to > so many people becomes unwieldy. How do you even know where to send the > checks? I guess the internet makes some of this potentially easier, but > you'd need a totally structured development environment for the software > case tracking every use of every piece of code -- probably one too rigid > for my tastes. It's not all that easy to determine derived works -- what > if a person wants to merge two functions from different vendors? Or > split one into two parts? The overhead of this system may rapidly cost > much more than any authors are making. At that point, then everyone > should just work for a big company (or the government) and get > salaries... These are all valid objections that need to be overcome. I am merely putting forth the proposition that if a system *did* do these things (overcoming the objections noted above in the process) then it would produce a highly viable software ecosystem with high levels of publishing and reuse, the ready availability of usable code, and the potential for making a living as well, or at least paying for the computer system that one had to have to connect to the web and develop the software. Fundamentally, my observation is that "software is free" is only true with respect to reproduction costs. With respect to development, and maintenance, it takes time. And people have to eat. On the other hand, I have few irons in the fire aimed at removing the need to eat and the need for housing as major obstacles to the kind of nirvana we would like to enjoy. They'll take anywhere from 40 to 100 years to pan out, though, so for the majority of us, making a living will still be a necessity for quite a while! From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 00:03:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0FF8356FF3; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.centralhouse.net (unknown [208.229.102.213]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A966356FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ncarroll (unverified [208.229.102.24]) by mail.centralhouse.net (Vircom SMTPRS 5.0.194) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:23:37 -0700 Message-ID: <01b401c1fb17$413cae80$1866e5d0@ncarroll> From: "N. Carroll" To: References: <3CE074B2.60FCCA4D@kurtz-fernhout.com> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Slashdot: Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers? Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:14:22 -0700 Organization: Hastings Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Fernhout To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Slashdot: Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers? > Couldn't resist -- just saw this and thought about about the risk to > volunteers from the colloquiums "permission to use" indemnification > clause from something as simple as putting up a web page these days... Well, even paranoids can have enemies... >From Ross E. Cheit's "Corporate Ambulance Chasers" (he teaches poli sci at Brown U.): "... Questionable litigation also taints the field of patent and copyright law. For example, Kenner Parker Toys, maker of Play-Doh, sued Tyco Toys, claiming that Tyco's Double Dough Doer copied the "confidential idea" of pushing twocolors of Play-Doh through an extrusion machine. "Some companies actually specialize in suing for profit. Eugene Lang, renowned for offering some inner-city school kids college tuition, is most prominent. His company, Refac Technology Development Corp., develops lawsuits, not technology. Refac has made millions buying patents, filing lawsuits and settling out of court. ..." > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/13/1914221&mode=thread&tid=155&thre shold=2 > > "I work for a small plumbing, heating, > > irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built > > up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many > > products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as > > PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To > > the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, > > they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a > > method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they > > invented the use of a form to enter customer information. > > Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! > > However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other > > small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope > > that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately > > remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to > > bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue > > this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may > > become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under > > their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." > > So any volunteer creating a website with text and images related to > UnRevII or OHS and in any way conceivably used commercially by BI or > Stanford under "permission to use" might want to just get out their > checkbooks now to write a nice big $30K check to each of Stanford and BI > preemptively for when PanIP comes a knockin' :-) (unless you also want > to pay BIs and Bootstraps legal fees before they settle anyway as you > have no choice in their course of defense). Let's see -- together that's > $60K, so any BI volunteer who has owned a house for a decade or so might > want to cough that up preferentially to bankruptcy. A bit painful > though. > > I hope this patent won't also be construed to apply to these emails > being posted as web pages on BI's email archives? Maybe everyone on the > list can kick in a few grand so we can start a preemptive defense fund > to pay Stanford or BI in such a case? > > The point isn't that such patents are valid or invalid (though obviously > it's probably bogus with prior art) -- but the cost of fighting such a > threatened lawsuits if you are being shaken down (even to ask a patent > lawyer to just evaluate the situation for a coupel of hours) may be high > and you have no choice in whether BI or Stanford decides to settle. > > Sadly, regardless of "permission to use" being resolved, in the U.S. > this software patent thing is probably going to get a lot worse before > it gets better... And the risk is higher in some ways for open source > work because the operation is more open to inspection and thus charges > of patent infringement can be made more easily. > > To turn "permission to use" on its head, perhaps BI and Stanford could > figure out a way to indemnify all volunteers worldwide for work done on > any open source OHS-like systems in good faith -- such as by obtaining > extensive comprehensive E&O insurance (as opposed to the current state > of indemnification the other way around) if such can be had -- say for a > few million dollars a year? Or at least, they could pledge a few million > in trust to come to the legal defense of accused volunteer developers of > OHS like systems anywhere in the world? That's one action that would > ease my mind when working in this field. > > -Paul Fernhout -- ________________________________ Nicholas Carroll ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com Travel: ncarroll1000@yahoo.com http://www.hastingsresearch.com ________________________________ "The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build." -- Frederick Brooks From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 00:30:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B381256FF3; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52B1756FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020514074654.91392.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:46:54 PDT Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:46:54 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Cc: ilc-dev@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > at which time, I'd like a tiny fee for each copy and > I'll share that > revenue with those who have made my work possible. > I might even be willing > to negotiate volume discounts, and so forth. This becomes an important issue with free web services, as soon as you provide the service, anyone can use it. Free or not. You might want to license clients to pay per usage, and use some micro payment. This is feasable for supporting the cost of running software, bandwith, memory and so forth. The freedom is the libre in the source code, not the free beer. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 05:00:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 310FE56FF4; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8374C56FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1173-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.157]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D50422EC7 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:17:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:18:44 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric Armstrong wrote: > These are all valid objections that need to be overcome. I am merely > putting forth the proposition that if a system *did* do these things > (overcoming the objections noted above in the process) then it would > produce a highly viable software ecosystem with high levels of > publishing and reuse, the ready availability of usable code, and the > potential for making a living as well, or at least paying for the computer > system that one had to have to connect to the web and develop the > software. Perhaps one issue here is you imagine yourself personally benefiting from such a system. Consider the system you propose the standpoint of Microsoft owning it (say by licensing it from Stanford after you develop it for free in this forum), and Microsoft putting in most of the code it serves up (heavily promoted by advertising), with Microsoft's position all protected by copyrights and patents on both the code and the business model. Would you still want to use it? If Microsoft owned the system, would you still be able to work in the computer profession at all without vomiting? "Sorry, but our IT budget mostly goes to pay Microsoft code micropayments, not much money for customization anymore, we just run our business the way Microsoft thinks we should as reflected by their codebase. Besides, if we didn't just do it the Microsoft way, we'd be sued for patent infringement, so we have no other realistic choice. And sorry, we know you have put code in there, but it just wouldn't be safe or cost effective for us to do use it as we'd have to hire a patent lawyer to review it first, and we know we're safe with the Microsoft code." If you do develop such a system and it works, how long before Microsoft owns it? Even if you make a pile of money, is this the world you want? Do you really want to focus your personal energies on a system you could easily be shut out of? > Fundamentally, my observation is that "software is free" is only true > with respect to reproduction costs. With respect to development, > and maintenance, it takes time. And people have to eat. Is the law free? Yes. Are lawyers well paid? Yes. Is medical knowledge free? Yes. Are doctors well paid? Yes. Is most code free? No. Are most programmers paid as much as doctors and lawyers? No. There isn't enough in this little set of statements to reach a definitive conclusion, but this situation does tend to show that programmers might be better off financially if code was free. Note I said "programmers" -- not necessarily most existing for-profit corporations, some of whom might make more than doctors and lawyers per employee (not evenly distributed though). > On the other hand, I have few irons in the fire aimed at removing the > need to eat and the need for housing as major obstacles to the kind > of nirvana we would like to enjoy. They'll take anywhere from 40 to > 100 years to pan out, though, so for the majority of us, making a > living will still be a necessity for quite a while! In the novel" the Diamond Age", set I think a few decades from now, there are public nanotechnology matter replicators on the streets you can go up to for food or to ask for something like a blanket or simple tent. One issue is, you need to pay somehow for more complicated things (presumably due to patents and copyrights and keeping the feed going?) and who needs much manual labor? Also, where will you put your free tent if you don't own land? And if you do own land, how will you pay the taxes on it to keep it? Big theme in the book is breaking out of the hierarchical control over these systems and the stratified class based society reflected there. (By the way, turns out some highly paid people in that society make antique goods from wood and stuff by hand -- just like some do in ours now. Might be a good profession for a programmer to have, just in case.) -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 09:50:49 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DCA7256FF5; Tue, 14 May 2002 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 05:08:04 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Human-Centered Design In-reply-to: <20020514074654.91392.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Cc: ilc-dev@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_D35G2q7VgxKmAoiIKWkdIg)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_D35G2q7VgxKmAoiIKWkdIg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT washingtonpost.com A Visual Rather Than Verbal Future By Leslie Walker Thursday, May 9, 2002; Page E01 With all due respect to fellow computing gurus around the world, the University of Maryland's Ben Shneiderman doesn't think speech will ever become the main way people communicate with computers. He's convinced our eyes will do better than our voices at helping us control the digital machinery of the 21st century. His explanation seems so simple, so obvious, so testable, that you have to wonder why Microsoft, IBM and other research labs have been spending billions of dollars trying to let us talk to computers the way people did to HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey." "Hollywood and the image of HAL gave us this dream, this hope, this vision, but the reality is quite different," says Shneiderman, a computer science professor and well-known researcher, sitting in a College Park office more cluttered with books than computers. "It turns out speaking uses auditory memory, which is in the same space as your short-term and working memory," he adds. What that means, basically, is that it's hard to speak and think at the same time. Shneiderman says researchers in his computer science lab discovered through controlled experiments that when you tell your computer to "page down" or "italicize that word" by speaking aloud, you're gobbling up precious chunks of memory -- leaving you with little brainpower to focus on the task at hand. It's easier to type or click a mouse while thinking about something else because hand-eye coordination uses a different part of the brain, the researchers concluded. The upshot, Shneiderman contends, is that while speech may help blind and disabled people interact with computers, it's unlikely to become the dominant way people connect with them. "It's the bicycle of user interfaces," he says of human voice, his own sounding a tad weary, as if he has said this many times before. "It gets you there . . . but it's not going to carry the heavy load that visual interfaces will." Visualization, you see, is Shneiderman's thing. You can tell by how his voice springs to life when he starts talking about the visual interface projects underway at the University of Maryland's Human-Computer Interaction Lab, the research group he founded 19 years ago to develop novel ways of interacting with computers. When the public descends on his College Park lab for its annual symposium and open house May 30-31 (www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/soh), it will see an array of new graphical tools for exploring information. Shneiderman thinks visual tools are what will let humans master computers. If he's right, the next-generation Internet may have fewer software "robots" than most pundits predict. Or if software agents do catch on, visual tools may be how we control them. Control, after all, is what Shneiderman thinks is still missing from the computing experience. Computers and the Internet are too darned frustrating, he says, and the only way to put people back in control is through new software designs that are more human-centered, chiefly by leveraging our powerful visual sense. His latest visual tool is the "timesearcher," a graphical box that lets people ask questions about massive amounts of data and see the answers visually. Instead of having to type each question using words and numbers ("show me all the stocks that rose in price more than 30 percent between January and April," for example), the timebox lets you drag around a box on the screen, shrinking or expanding it to explore complex relationships among data over time, with results displayed instantly in an adjacent panel. Wall Street analysts are testing his timeboxes for technical stock analysis. "But our interest really is in genomic data, where you have 10,000 genes on a DNA microchip and you are looking for patterns over time," Shneiderman says. His team of more than half a dozen researchers is led by Ben Bederson, a younger version of Shneiderman who has taken over as director of the College Park lab (colleagues call them Ben S. and Ben B.) and is equally committed to the power of visual tools. Bederson developed software to browse the thousands of digital photographs he had taken of his 3-year-old daughter. The software, called PhotoMesa, lets people see a ton of image directories and thumbnails at once, then zoom in to get a bigger view of any particular image or group. After downloading the free software from the lab's Web site, I used it to find, in about 10 minutes, a photo I had searched for in vain for months among the thousands of digital photos I have stashed on my home computer. The lab has had its share of commercial successes, notably with software that creates graphical sliders to let users quickly refine searches or try out what-if scenarios based on different variables. The so-called dynamic search query software was taken to market by a Massachusetts company called Spotfire and is being used by big drug companies and other businesses. Many programs emerging from the lab (including funny-looking fish-eye menus where type starts small and gets bigger before turning small again) let users visually zoom in and out easily, the idea being that people grasp data better if they can associate it with the big picture. You can see for yourself at SmartMoney.com's online map of the stock market, which shows 500 stocks in a maze of overlapping rectangles, with green representing companies and sectors with rising stock prices and red depicting falling ones. It was developed with mathematical formulas for "treemaps" created in Shneiderman's lab. Shneiderman is best known for inventing a form of hyperlinked text called "Hyperties" in the 1980s, a forerunner of the World Wide Web's hyperlinks. He was right about the power of visually linked text back then. There's no reason to think he isn't right now about how timeboxes, dynamic query sliders and similar graphical interfaces will one day let us discover startling truths -- much as Galileo shook up the 17th century when his telescope revealed craters on the moon and led to the discovery of galaxies far, far away. "These tools are like telescopes and microscopes," Shneiderman says. "They are a new way of viewing things you couldn't see before." C 2002 The Washington Post Company --Boundary_(ID_D35G2q7VgxKmAoiIKWkdIg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT washingtonpost.com

A Visual Rather Than Verbal Future

By Leslie Walker

Thursday, May 9, 2002; Page E01

With all due respect to fellow computing gurus around the world, the University of Maryland's Ben Shneiderman doesn't think speech will ever become the main way people communicate with computers. He's convinced our eyes will do better than our voices at helping us control the digital machinery of the 21st century.

His explanation seems so simple, so obvious, so testable, that you have to wonder why Microsoft, IBM and other research labs have been spending billions of dollars trying to let us talk to computers the way people did to HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

"Hollywood and the image of HAL gave us this dream, this hope, this vision, but the reality is quite different," says Shneiderman, a computer science professor and well-known researcher, sitting in a College Park office more cluttered with books than computers. "It turns out speaking uses auditory memory, which is in the same space as your short-term and working memory," he adds.

What that means, basically, is that it's hard to speak and think at the same time. Shneiderman says researchers in his computer science lab discovered through controlled experiments that when you tell your computer to "page down" or "italicize that word" by speaking aloud, you're gobbling up precious chunks of memory -- leaving you with little brainpower to focus on the task at hand. It's easier to type or click a mouse while thinking about something else because hand-eye coordination uses a different part of the brain, the researchers concluded.

The upshot, Shneiderman contends, is that while speech may help blind and disabled people interact with computers, it's unlikely to become the dominant way people connect with them.

"It's the bicycle of user interfaces," he says of human voice, his own sounding a tad weary, as if he has said this many times before. "It gets you there . . . but it's not going to carry the heavy load that visual interfaces will."

Visualization, you see, is Shneiderman's thing. You can tell by how his voice springs to life when he starts talking about the visual interface projects underway at the University of Maryland's Human-Computer Interaction Lab, the research group he founded 19 years ago to develop novel ways of interacting with computers. When the public descends on his College Park lab for its annual symposium and open house May 30-31 (www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/soh), it will see an array of new graphical tools for exploring information.

Shneiderman thinks visual tools are what will let humans master computers. If he's right, the next-generation Internet may have fewer software "robots" than most pundits predict. Or if software agents do catch on, visual tools may be how we control them.

Control, after all, is what Shneiderman thinks is still missing from the computing experience. Computers and the Internet are too darned frustrating, he says, and the only way to put people back in control is through new software designs that are more human-centered, chiefly by leveraging our powerful visual sense.

His latest visual tool is the "timesearcher," a graphical box that lets people ask questions about massive amounts of data and see the answers visually. Instead of having to type each question using words and numbers ("show me all the stocks that rose in price more than 30 percent between January and April," for example), the timebox lets you drag around a box on the screen, shrinking or expanding it to explore complex relationships among data over time, with results displayed instantly in an adjacent panel.

Wall Street analysts are testing his timeboxes for technical stock analysis. "But our interest really is in genomic data, where you have 10,000 genes on a DNA microchip and you are looking for patterns over time," Shneiderman says.

His team of more than half a dozen researchers is led by Ben Bederson, a younger version of Shneiderman who has taken over as director of the College Park lab (colleagues call them Ben S. and Ben B.) and is equally committed to the power of visual tools.

Bederson developed software to browse the thousands of digital photographs he had taken of his 3-year-old daughter. The software, called PhotoMesa, lets people see a ton of image directories and thumbnails at once, then zoom in to get a bigger view of any particular image or group. After downloading the free software from the lab's Web site, I used it to find, in about 10 minutes, a photo I had searched for in vain for months among the thousands of digital photos I have stashed on my home computer.

The lab has had its share of commercial successes, notably with software that creates graphical sliders to let users quickly refine searches or try out what-if scenarios based on different variables. The so-called dynamic search query software was taken to market by a Massachusetts company called Spotfire and is being used by big drug companies and other businesses.

Many programs emerging from the lab (including funny-looking fish-eye menus where type starts small and gets bigger before turning small again) let users visually zoom in and out easily, the idea being that people grasp data better if they can associate it with the big picture. You can see for yourself at SmartMoney.com's online map of the stock market, which shows 500 stocks in a maze of overlapping rectangles, with green representing companies and sectors with rising stock prices and red depicting falling ones. It was developed with mathematical formulas for "treemaps" created in Shneiderman's lab.

Shneiderman is best known for inventing a form of hyperlinked text called "Hyperties" in the 1980s, a forerunner of the World Wide Web's hyperlinks. He was right about the power of visually linked text back then. There's no reason to think he isn't right now about how timeboxes, dynamic query sliders and similar graphical interfaces will one day let us discover startling truths -- much as Galileo shook up the 17th century when his telescope revealed craters on the moon and led to the discovery of galaxies far, far away.

"These tools are like telescopes and microscopes," Shneiderman says. "They are a new way of viewing things you couldn't see before."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

 

 

--Boundary_(ID_D35G2q7VgxKmAoiIKWkdIg)-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 12:12:26 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7904656FF3; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail7.wlv.netzero.net (mail7.wlv.netzero.net [209.247.163.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D17CA56FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2481 invoked from network); 14 May 2002 19:28:31 -0000 Received: from 63-93-100-96.oak.dial.netzero.com (HELO netzero.net) (63.93.100.96) by mail7.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 14 May 2002 19:28:31 -0000 Message-ID: <3CE16560.3A43970D@netzero.net> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:28:32 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] 1) Protecting fair-use rights in the digital world, and 2) "Improving Our Ability to Improve", etc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org So, how should the Bootstrap Alliance think about the possibility of organizing paradigm shifts in economics and law in order for the OHS to succeed in moving from the "invisible hand" of A & B economic/law activities (i.e., more competitive production) to the strategy of "creative destruction" as C-economic/law activities (i.e., "improving to improve")? Well, here's some wise suggestions. According to Doug Engelbart: Moving from "invisible hand" to strategy - "The good news is that it is possible to build an infrastructure that supports discontinuous innovation. There is no need at all to depend on mystical, invisible hands and the oracular pronouncements hidden within the marketplace. The alternative is conscious investment in an improvement infrastructure to support new, discontinuous innovation." ... "Discontinuous innovation is much riskier, in that it is much less predicable, than continuous innovation. It disrupts markets. It threatens the positions of market leaders because, as leaders, they need to "listen" to the existing market and existing customers and keep building improved versions of the old technology, rather than take advantage of the new innovation. It is this power to create great change that makes discontinuous innovation so valuable over the long run. It is how we step outside the existing paradigm to create something that is really new." < http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-11.html#q > Whereas, British Nobel laureate economist John Hicks who took up this topic in his 1983 paper on “revolutions” in economics says: “Our special concern [in economics] is with the fact of the present world; but before we can study the present, it is already past. In order that we should be able to say useful things about what is happening, before it is too late, we must select, even select quite violently. We must concentrate our attention, and hope that we have concentrated it in the right place. “Our theories, regarded as tools of analysis, are blinkers in this sense. Or it may be politer to say that they are rays of light, which illuminate a part of the target, leaving the rest in the dark. As we use them, we avert our eyes from things that may be relevant. ...But it is obvious that a theory which is to perform this function satisfactorily must be well chosen; otherwise it will illumine the wrong things. Further, since it is a changing world that we are studying, a theory which illumines the right things now may illumine the wrong things another time. This may happen because of changes in the world (the things neglected may have grown relative to the things considered) or because of changes in our sources of information (the sorts of facts that are readily accessible to us may have changed) or because of changes in ourselves (the things in which we are interested may have changed). There is, there can be, no economic theory which will do for us everything we want all the time.” (Hicks, John. “’Revolutions’ in Economics,” in John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, Collected Essays, Vol. III. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983, pp. 3-16.) Put succinctly, Hicks argues that economic science must adapt to the nature of the economy. The growing importance of creative endeavors appears to be what’s new in the New Economy. If so, the New Economy represents a significant change in the nature of the U.S. economy, one that is difficult to align with the paradigm of perfect competition. The New Economy is highly competitive, but creative destruction, not production, is the center of the competition. This implies, in line with Engelbart and Hicks’s views, that for understanding the New Economy, Joseph Schumpeter’s "creative destruction paradigm" may be superior to Adam Smith’s "invisible hand." So, as noted above, I'm now concerned that our Bootstrap Alliance problem is more than simply debating issues like "Rethinking Licensing Agreements, Micropayments, and Errors & Omissions liability insurance, etc, especially now that Senator Hollings has introduced a new bill that poses new threats to fair use of "creative destruction" leading to paradigm shifts for "improving to improve". Senator Hollings formally introduced a new bill that poses new threats to fair use On March 21, 2002,Senator Hollings officially announced the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act." In addition to continuing the erosion of personal use rights, this bill will require the incorporation of government-mandated copy protection technology into every digital media device. In 2001, Senator Hollings introduced a draft bill called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA). Many people thought that the bill was so biased towards the media companies that it would never pass the draft stage. But on March 21st, the SSSCA became an official bill under the new name of the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" (CBDTPA). This is bad news because it means that there's a real chance that this bill could become a law. More ... full text: < http://cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm > We are advocating a Consumer Technology Bill of Rights that will positively assert a consumer's rights to fair use. The Bill of Rights will guarantee your ability to use your own digital media in the way that you choose. With the support of consumers, we are working to have the Bill of Rights passed into law. Our proposed Bill has already gained support from numerous consumers as well as prominent executives and venture capitalists, but there's a lot more that we need to do in order to let Washington know that this is important. < http://www.Digitalconsumer.org/ > [For instance] "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"- Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation How to Get Active? < http://www.Digitalconsumer.org/active.html > 1) Pamela Samuelson's Keynote address: Protecting fair-use rights in the digital world < http://www2002.org/speakers.html#samuelson > Pamela Samuelson Bio: < http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/bio.html > "Until very recently, copyright has been on the periphery of law and public policy concerns because it provided highly technical rules to regulate a specialized industry. The politics of copyright largely focused on intra-industry bickering. The typical response of the legislature to such intra-industry struggles has been to propose that affected parties meet behind closed doors and hammer out compromise language that would thereafter become enacted into law. It didn't matter much if the language negotiated in the heat of the night was incomprehensible (as has so often been the case) because the affected parties understood it, and that was all that mattered. Copyright law has, as a consequence, become highly complex and effectively unreadable. One reason why a new politics of intellectual property is necessary is that copyright now affects everyone. Advances in information technology and digital networks allow everyone to become a publisher. Under the Clinton Administration's "White Paper" on Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure, every access to and use of digital information was a copyright-significant act because they involve temporary copying of the information in the random access memory of a computer, which the White Paper said violated the reproduction right of copyright owners unless authorized by them. While this interpretation of existing law is highly controversial among copyright lawyers, there is some caselaw support for it in the U.S. and the European Union's recent Directive on Copyright for the Information Society adopts it as the right rule for the future. Because copyright infringement by individuals is so difficult to police in a distributed networked environment, copyright owners are increasingly going after technologies that enable copyright infringement. One strategy is very expensive litigation, such as the lawsuits against Napster and other makers of peer-to-peer software. Another is by support for new legislation such as Senator Hollings' Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (S. 2048). The Hollings bill would outlaw the general purpose computer and open source digital media players. It would require all makers of digital media devices to install technical protection measures vetted by the Federal Communications Commission. Those who violated this law could go to jail for a very long time. European Union officials have expressed sympathy for mandating technical protection measures as well, althoug they have not yet formulated legislation to require this. The Hollings bill is unlikely to pass during the current legislative session but it should be taken very seriously. Hollywood won't be satisfied until and unless general purpose computers have been tamed and the Internet has been rearchitected to make it safe for their products. Quite possible in the near term are little "mini-Hollings" bills focused on specific technologies (e.g., requiring makers of digital televisions to build sets to respond to broadcast "flags" which would allow or disallow copying of particular programs). Once several of these bills have passed, the momentum for more general legislation is likely to build. To oppose such legislation, it is not enough to say that the Hollings bill or little mini-Hollings bills are brain-dead or unenforceable. If you think general purpose computers and open information environments such as the World Wide Web are valuable, you are going to have to help build a new politics of intellectual property that will preserve these devices and infrastructure. This will not be easy because of two important legacies of the old politics of intellectual property: First, copyright industry groups have cultivated relationships with policymakers in the executive and legislative branches over a long period of time. They have built up trust with policymakers, and they know how to get their messages across to this audience very effectively. Second, the public has gotten used to the idea that copyright doesn't concern them. It is, as a consequence, virtually impossible to mobilize the public when changes to copyright law are proposed. Even though changes such as the Hollings bill will almost certainly have profound impacts on the public's use of information, it is difficult for most people to realize what's at stake. Even when some members of the public, such as USACM's public policy committee, do become engaged in the policy debates about copyright, they lack the political heft of industry counterparts, not the least because they are less fruitful sources of campaign contributions. A new politics of intellectual property is needed to counteract the content industry's drive toward ever stronger rights. More importantly, a broader awareness is needed that copyright deeply affects the information environment for us all. The digital networked environment has surely changed the economics of production of intellectual property (e.g., the marginal cost of copying is effectively zero), the economics of distribution (e.g., the cost of transmission via the Internet is also effectively zero), and the economics of publication (e.g., posting information on the web is also radically cheaper than in the print environment). This means, among other things, that the actions of individuals can have the same potential market-destructive impact as those of commercial counterfeiters in the olden days. This helps to explain why the content industries have been so anxious about computers and why they favor moving to a pay-per-use or mandated trusted system policy for all commercially valuable information in digital form. Without imaginative proposals for more balanced solutions and without a political movement to support and sustain such proposals "in other words, without a new politics of intellectual property" there will be little to stop the current politics from having its high protectionist way. James Boyle has argued for a new politics of intellectual property in his essay "Environmentalism for the Net." This essay points out that in the 1950's there was no concept of the "environment." Logging and mining companies thought that they alone were affected by legislation concerning natural resource issues and they lobbied for policies that sometimes caused erosion and pollution to ruin streams and lakes, scar the landscape, and kill off of fish and other wildlife. It took a while for bird-watchers and hunters (as well as society more generally) to realize they had a common interest in preservation of nature. Together they invented the concept of the environment, and this concept enabled a powerful political movement to protect it. What is needed is a similar movement to protect the intangible interests we all have in an open information environment, in robust public domain, and in balanced intellectual property law. It will sound strange perhaps to put it this way, but our information ecology really will be disrupted if intellectual property rights get too strong. So far Greenpeace hasn't taken up the cause, but maybe they should. Here are some thoughts about who might participate in a new politics of intellectual property aimed at promoting a balanced information ecology. Obvious candidates include authors and artists (who need access to information, a robust public domain, and meaningful fair use rights), educational institutions, libraries, scholarly societies, computing professionals, computer manufacturers and other equipment providers who don't want Hollywood to be in charge of their research and development divisions, telecommunications companies and Internet service and access providers (who want to serve their customers and not become a new branch of the police), consumer groups, civil liberties organizations, and digital media companies who may have some radical business models that just might work if not shut down through litigation by established copyright industry groups who want to protect preferred business models. The agenda of a new politics of intellectual property obviously needs to be about more than just opposing the high protectionist initiatives of copyright industry groups. It should, of course, oppose legislation such as the Hollings bill, but the new politics needs to have a set of affirmative policy objectives of its own. The new politics might, for example, propose legislation to protect consumer rights, such as fair use, under copyright law. Digitalconsumer.org has made a good start on such a project by formulating a users' "bill of rights." A new politics might also support legislation to require digital rights management systems to protect the right of consumers to read and listen anonymously. It might also support changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act anti-circumvention rules so that researchers like Edward Felten and his colleagues don't need to worry about getting sued when they do scientific research and publish the results. And it should also take an international perspective because as we all know, the Internet and the World Wide Web are inherently international in character. It is necessary to care about the intellectual property rules of every nation because overly strict rules in one jurisdiction can mean that no one will be safe posting information on the Web without fear of liability. Recall that Dmitri Sklyarov was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, for having written a program in Russia that was available on the Web because Adobe persuaded the Justice Department it violated the DMCA anti-circumvention rules. Articulating the societal benefits of an open information environment, such as the World Wide Web, is probably the single most important thing that the new politics of intellectual property might do. This is an activity that participants in this conference are eminently capable of doing. The robustness and efficiency of the Internet and the Web as a global communications medium is a product of its present end-to-end, open, nondiscriminatory architecture. Computers are not only more valuable to people because they can so quickly and easily copy information from disk to disk, but the ease of copying enables many beneficial new uses of information which copyright owners neither need to nor ought to be able to control. Innovation and competition would be stifled if mandated trusted systems became the law. Moreover, the market for digital information products may well be vastly smaller if every piece of information must be tightly locked up at all times. Branko Geravac once recommended that publishers "protect revenues, not bits." Maybe a new politics of intellectual property could help copyright industries get re-focused on providing content that a wide array of the public might want to enjoy instead of putting so much effort into suppressing innovation and competition in the information technology industry and the digital networked environment through lawsuits and unsound legislative initiatives." 2) April 27, 2002, Douglas C. Engelbart Keynote address, World Library Summit in Singapore: "Improving Our Ability to Improve" "Difficulties with knowledge governance. - As another example of our still relatively primitive ability to deal with information exchange among groups, consider the chaotic and increasingly frightening direction of new laws regarding knowledge governance - most notably reflected in laws regarding copyright. Because it is generally technically advanced, one might think that my country, the United States, would be representative of leading edge capability to deal with knowledge governance and knowledge sharing. But, instead, we are passing increasingly draconian laws to protect the economic value of copies of information. In the US, we are even contemplating laws that would require hardware manufacturers to take steps to encrypt and protect copies (ref. 2). We are doing this while entering a digital era in which the marginal cost of a copy is zero - at a time where the very meaning and significance of the notion of "copy" has changed. It is as if we are trying to erect dikes, using laws, to keep the future from flooding in.. The immediate effect of all this is to enable a dramatic shift in control to the owners of information, away from the users of information (ref. 3) - a strategy which will almost certainly fail in the long run and that has confusing and probably damaging economic consequences in the short run. The most modest conclusion that one might draw from watching the U.S. attempt to deal with knowledge governance in a digital age is that the legislators have a weak understanding of the issues and are responding to the enormous political power of the companies with vested interest in old ways of using information. Looking somewhat more deeply, it seems quite clear that we are ill-prepared to come to terms with an environment in which the social value of knowledge emerges from collaborative use of it. The entire idea of value emerging from sharing, collaboration, and use of knowledge - as opposed to treating knowledge as a scarce resource that should be owned and protected - is anathema to the 20th century knowledge owners, who are fighting hard to protect their turf." < http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-11.html#q > Other "Unfinished Revolutions" "The key to building a more powerful capability infrastructure lies in expanding the channels and modes of communication - not simplifying them. This is very powerful, exciting stuff. If we begin to act on this notion of our relation, as humans, to these amazing machines that we have created, we really begin to open up new opportunities for growth and problem solving." ... "Thinking back to our research at SRI leads me to another key feature of development work at the C level: You have to apply what you discover. That is the way that you reach out and snatch a bit of the future and bring it back to the present: You grab it and use it." ... "Another difference between innovation at the C level and innovation that is more focused on specific results is that, at the C level, context is tremendously important. We are not trying to solve a specific problem, but, instead, are reaching for insight into a broad class of activities and opportunities for improvement. That means attending to external information as well as to the specifics of the particular work at hand. In fact, in my own work, I have routinely found that when I seem to reach a dead end in my pursuit of a problem, the key is usually to move up a level of abstraction, to look at the more general case." - Doug Engelbart, Keynote address, World Library Summit in Singapore (2002) < http://www.wls.com.sg/main.htm > For instance, .... "Just over a century ago, Guglielmo Marconi (1901) freed communications from the limitations of physical wiring when he invented the wireless UWB radio. "We hear a lot these days of powerful companies with effective monopolies (like local telephone incumbents or copyright holders) using the law to squelch new technologies; it is a theme being debated particularly now with the appearance of Lawrence Lessig's book The Future of Ideas. To recognize what is at stake, it helps to recall earlier bouts in the fight between easy profits and long-term progress." (See: Entrenched interests tried to sue inventor Marconi: Father of Radio < http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/953 >) Today, in 2002, "Unbundling the Spectrum" is now feasible since in a UWB-powered world, specific frequencies are meaningless, because the information travels in such small packages. UWB technology erases the need for an agency charged with regulating the distribution of radio signals--and effectively strips away from governments a tremendous amount of power over the governed. A UWB signal can't be intercepted and it's very hard to jam. Governments, the ultimate control freaks no matter how they are constructed, are reflexively opposed to the totally free flow of information, especially when they can't listen in on or exert control over that information. "Radio's oldest technology is providing a new way for portable electronics to transmit large quantities of data rapidly without wires. ... Ultrawideband wireless technology should make possible an entirely NEW CLASS OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES and functions that would change the way we live". < http://www.sciam.com/2002/0502issue/0502leeper.html > The Spectrum as Commons: Digital Wireless Technologies and the Radio Policy Ikeda Nobuo (ikeda-nobu@rieti.go.jp) Japan Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry "Current systems of radio administration, based on the government license, are inherited from the beginning of the 20th for the purpose of regulating radio broadcasting stations. They are obsolete for the Internet age, because next-generation technologies such as the wireless Internet, Software Defined Radio, and Ultra Wide Band will make it possible for all users to share broad band. They cast grave doubts on the presupposition of the licensing system that radio spectrum is "scarce resources". In this article I propose a new policy of radio administration that would distribute marketable rights of spectrum usage instead of licenses, and unify the transport layer by the Internet Protocol, thereby liberalizing services completely. Ultimately it would be desirable to treat the spectrum as commons to be open for free use, provided that some definite criteria are met." < http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/02e002.pdf > FCC's current understanding of how wireless networks scale and the illusion of spectrum scarcity < http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~cjackson/TAC/Spectrum%20capacity%20myth%20FCC%20TAC.pdf > In conclusion, IMHO, the Bootstrap Alliance needs to collaborate on 1) "Digital Consumer Technology Bill of Rights" and 2) a "Wireless Device Bill of Rights" for insuring an interoperable infrastructure in decentralized peer networks and sharing the (OHS/DKR) Bootstrap. For example: a) UWB Cognitive Radio: Toward the Wireless Device Bill of Rights? by Kalle R. Kontson, IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE < http://www.jacksons.net/tac/FCC-%20TAC%20-%20SDR%20and%20SM%20reg-27Sep00-v1.ppt > * Article 1: Any intelligent wireless device may, on a non-interference basis, use any frequency, frequencies or bandwidth, at any time, to perform its function. * Article 1, Tenet 1: To exercise rights under this Article, intelligent devices must be mentally competent to accurately determine the possibility of interference that may result from their use of the spectrum, and have the moral character to not do so if that possibility might infringe on the rights of other users. * Article 1, Tenet 2: To exercise rights under this Article, intelligent devices must actively use the wireless spectrum within the minimum time, spatial and bandwidth constraints necessary to accomplish the function. Squatting on spectrum is strictly prohibited. * Article 2: All users of the spectrum shall have the right to operate without harmful electromagnetic interference from other users. * Article 2, Tenet 1: Priority of rights under this Article may be determined by the proper authorities only in cases of National emergency, safety of life or situations of extreme public interest. * Article 2, Tenet 2: Rights under this Article may be exercised only when the systems exercising the rights are designed , as determined by the state of the practice, to be reasonably resistant in interference. * Article 3: All licensing, auctioning, selling or otherwise disposition of the rights to frequencies and spectrum usage shall be subordinate to , and controlled by Articles 1 and 2, above. b) Interoperable Infrastructure in Decentralized Peer Networks and Sharing the Bootstrap "The most difficult and critical part of creating a widely used and effective peer network is bootstrapping it with enough resources to gather momentum. All of the networks in existence today started out small, and gradually, over time amassed more and more users until a critical point was reached which brought rapid popularity and vast numbers of resources. This is Metcalfe's law in action: the "value" or "power" of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes on the network. Bootstrapping peer networks - waiting for the exponential effect of Metcalfe's law to kick in - is a very time consuming and critical process. A good client will remain in obscurity unless it can reach this threshold. It would be orders of magnitude more effective to 'share' this bootstrap task by implementing the necessary features as an infrastructure service which many third party peer applications can utilize. The FastTrack network is one existing example of this kind of architecture. Anyone can purchase a license to the FastTrack library and instantly gain access to the same millions of users on the network who are using other implementations like Morpheus, Grokster or Kazaa. This kind of architecture benefits not only the end user applications who utilize this shared infrastructure, but also the infrastructure itself, by increasing the rate of adoption and effectiveness." < http://cubicmetercrystal.com/alpine/p2p-interop.html > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 13:59:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 766AF56FF3; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB4A456FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04144 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4ELFIW01956 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:15:18 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org The risks you allude to may be real, but I don't yet see them. How is it that a MS could come to dominate in such a system? Especially if, say, a) Royalties were capped at 10 or 15% of a product's price. (So percentages would be the norm, rather than a flat fee.) b) The warehouse of code suppliers had everyone's stuff side by side, so even if MS's routine to do X were there, your routine would be right next to it, with pricing and user ratings, as well. So if your routine cost less, had a smaller footprint, and better ratings from users, why wouldn't I use it? Paul Fernhout wrote: .... From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 14:02:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3EAED56FF5; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBAC956FF3 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11340 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:18:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4ELIQW02612 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE17F22.F2F46847@sun.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:18:26 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] [Fwd: XrML Spells Out Rights for Digital Assets] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Something of interest wrt the current discussion... UNIX INSIDER --- May 14, 2002 Published by ITworld.com -- changing the way you view IT http://www.itworld.com/newsletters ________________________________________________________________________________ HIGHLIGHTS * As the world becomes more connected, issues surrounding digital rights continue to plague the Internet. Can XrML supply the protection that your digital assets require? ______________________________________________________________________________ XrML Spells Out Rights for Digital Assets By Susan Levi Wallach Digital rights management is one of the perennial bugaboos of the Internet world. Once you put a digital asset online, how do you guard against unauthorized distribution? ContentGuard Inc. has an answer: XrML. eXtensible rights Markup Language (XrML) is a general language for specifying rights for digital assets. However, as Ron Schmelzer, senior analyst at ZapThink LLC, puts it, "The name of the game for any XML standard is adoption." To that end, ContentGuard is contributing XrML to Oasis, the consortium for XML interoperability standards, in the hope of building a consensus and ensuring industry participation in the language's development. The Bethesda, MD, provider of digital rights language technology also plans to hand over XrML governance to one of the several global standards organizations with which it is currently in discussions. The language was originally developed at Xerox Corp.'s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) as a means to facilitate creation of an open architecture for management of rights for digital content and services. "I think it serves a valuable role to specify this rights markup language," says Schmelzer, "because then any developer can say, without having to worry about the package that will actually implement it, that this image can only be shown to the following people three times and then it must self destruct. Or this text can be shown to anyone anywhere and can be copied." Moreover, establishment of a standard, universal digital rights language would be one step in ensuring that systems for managing digital content or Web services interoperate, which in turn could push commercialization of Web Services. With XrML, says Schmelzer, "I can specify those rights without having a piece of software in mind, without having to create it with an InterTrust system or a ContentGuard system or a Microsoft digital asset server system in mind." About the author(s) ------------------- Susan Levi Wallach is an editor and analyst and has been covering information technology since the days of Babbage. Susan can be reached at slw@pablo.com. ________________________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES XrML http://ui.unixinsider.com/GoNow/a14724a58202a76033898a7 Extensible Rights Markup Language (XrML) http://ui.unixinsider.com/GoNow/a14724a58202a76033898a6 XrML 2.0 Review http://ui.unixinsider.com/GoNow/a14724a58202a76033898a2 eXtensible Rights Markup Language http://ui.unixinsider.com/GoNow/a14724a58202a76033898a1 From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 15:40:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1E12E56FF3; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A946B56FF2 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29896 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4EMuJW25152 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE19613.3E0BA39B@sun.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:56:19 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Human-Centered Design References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > washingtonpost.com > > A Visual Rather Than Verbal Future > ... Great post. Thanks! From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 15:45:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 587D156FF5; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B2FC756FF3 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-383-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.2.129]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8CD23299 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 18:02:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:03:44 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric Armstrong wrote: > > The risks you allude to may be real, but I don't yet see them. > > How is it that a MS could come to dominate in such a system? * US$40 billion cash in the bank. * Monopoly dominance on the desktop. * Historically effective marketing to senior executives. * Brand name recognition. * A proven "success". * MSDN subscription service for easy delivery of Microsoft code and propaganda * Loyal developer network who knows VB, VC++, and MFC and can be easily led. * Extensive and successful experience declawing the U.S. criminal justice system. * If all else fails, hiring you for $1 million a year plus three months vacation to start. :-) But seriously, they did this to Borland engineers -- led to a law suit. From: http://www.borland.com/about/mssuit.html > Borland brings this action to stop Microsoft from systematically targeting > and raiding Borland's employees. In the last two weeks, three Borland > employees have been targeted and seduced away by Microsoft. > Moreover, Microsoft has systematically engaged in a plan and a > concerted course of action to unfairly compete with Borland in the > software development tools ("tools") business by targeting and > recruiting more than 34 of Borland's engineering and marketing > employees over the last 30 months. Microsoft's actions were taken > with the intent to deprive Borland of the resources Borland needs > to successfully remain as the only significant competitor to Microsoft > in the tools business. You also wrote: > Especially if, say, > a) Royalties were capped at 10 or 15% of a product's price. > (So percentages would be the norm, rather than a flat fee.) > > b) The warehouse of code suppliers had everyone's stuff > side by side, so even if MS's routine to do X were there, > your routine would be right next to it, with pricing and > user ratings, as well. So if your routine cost less, had a > smaller footprint, and better ratings from users, why > wouldn't I use it? There already is a warehouse of code on the internet (and in product catalogs) and has been for some time. Most people are writing in Visual Basic (and a little Visual C++) because it is from Microsoft and works well in Microsoft Office. Maybe they can write a little SQL to go with Microsoft access. That is the reality of (guessing) 80%+ of non-mainframe data processing today. That is the powerful platform Microsoft can leverage into their next big success. They are already doing so, with .Net. So, they might patch your system on top of .Net using Passport & such for the financial part. By various marketing schemes (such as bundling a license to use all their code for one fee, and otherwise threatening a code audit) they may succeed. Yes, a few independent developers might make some real money for show. The rest of us may feed off a few crumbs, if we can find work at all. One option for countering this? Friends help. A big company like IBM (hardware&services) [or Intel (hardware) or even Sun (hardware&services?)] allying with small developers through open source and free software to level the playing field by creating a mostly free infrastructure. Their strategies have been in this direction (Linux, Java) with some success but may still need some more refining. Sun kind of missed its chance to prevent something like Microsoft .Net with Java by trying to hold it too tightly (just like ParcPlace messed up with Smalltalk for similar reasons). Why will a company like IBM help? Frankly, if all software was GPL, J.P. Morgan Chase would still hire IBM to outsource their IT infrastructure over randomly trying to recruit you or I; that's just how that sort of thing works. IBM knows this. But if Microsoft owns the field, Microsoft will be better able to call these shots and perhaps develop a more extensive service arm with a competitive advantage, like Microsoft Office had a competitive advantage from close coupling with the OS. The problem the last decade in software development for every business plan has been -- "yeah it will work, but what do we do if Microsoft notices?" That's what it means to be a monopoly, and that is why they are so bad. Listen to Microsoft -- right now the only thing scaring it is the GPL. You want quick adoption and your name in the press as a technical wizard -- do a proprietary thing like you outline and let Microsoft buy it. You want to be called crazy and likely someday risk jail time as the laws change for trying to help people, go with the the GPL or free software approach. Look, John Deneen quotes Doug just now: > "Difficulties with knowledge governance. - As another example of our > still relatively primitive ability to deal with information exchange > among groups, consider the chaotic and increasingly frightening > direction of new laws regarding knowledge governance - most notably > reflected in laws regarding copyright. Because it is generally > technically advanced, one might think that my country, the United > States, would be representative of leading edge capability to deal with > knowledge governance and knowledge sharing. But, instead, we are > passing increasingly draconian laws to protect the economic value of > copies of information. In the US, we are even contemplating laws that > would require hardware manufacturers to take steps to encrypt and > protect copies (ref. 2). > > We are doing this while entering a digital era in which the marginal > cost of a copy is zero - at a time where the very meaning and > significance of the notion of "copy" has changed. It is as if we are > trying to erect dikes, using laws, to keep the future from flooding in.. > > The immediate effect of all this is to enable a dramatic shift in > control to the owners of information, away from the users of information > (ref. 3) - a strategy which will almost certainly fail in the long run > and that has confusing and probably damaging economic consequences in > the short run. I've been listening on and off to the Kenneth C. Davis CD series "Don't Know Much About the Civil War" and it is a real eye opener. http://hallaudiobooks.com/general/263.shtml It turns out, the same thing happened before the U.S. Civil War. With much of the population of the U.S. was against slavery, increasingly draconian laws were still passed supporting slavery including finally the fugitive slave act of 1850 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm requiring people to turn in fugitive slaves or themselves got to jail. Things kept getting worse for slaves until ultimately people had to take sides in a bloody conflict. The rhetoric of slave holders of that period sounds very similar to the justification for increasing copyrights and patents such as promoting commerce and a strong U.S. and further, ironically, a call to support the human rights of slaveholders to do as they wished with private property (slaves). And for those who think it is disrespectful to equate aspects of current copyrights and patents with the immorality of slavery, well, millions of people are dying from drug patents in Africa, so there is the immorality and the body count written large. http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/aids_drugs.htm Software patents are starting to deter innovation in the public commons, which inhibits the creation of tools that may help every human gain access to a common heritage of stories and information, which might lengthen their individual life spans and increase the enjoyment they get out of life. Perhaps the more I am drawn into all this the more I see that ultimately this will be a moral, not economic, choice. In any case, I'm not going to stop you from making a proprietary system. But, I did come to this forum from the start to make a "open source" OHS and I still think that is worth pursuing if "permission to use" issue, itself part of the legacy the OHS may be about resolving, can be resolved. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 16:03:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6BDDB56FF6; Tue, 14 May 2002 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97AD756FF5 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 16:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11030 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4ENJJW01059 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 16:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE19B77.D9115E6F@sun.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:19:19 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I don't see the issue. What about the system makes it more domination-prone than other alternatives? What alternatives do you suggest? Most importantly, if I google "gui toolkit" today, none of the considerations below necessarily result in MS being the only alternative I see -- or even the first alternative I see. Tell me how the kinds of the user-rated sorted we've discussed previously on this list would not completely obviate your concerns. And finally, there is no one who would begrudge MS total domination of the market, to the extent that is earned. Certainly not I. If the functions I need consistently work better, faster, and more reliability with software they provide, then they are more than welcome to make a buck on any unit I sell. Nor have you addressed the possibility of limiting revenue streams to a pre-determined percentage of a sales price. Such a move prevents some "monstor" from owning 99% of the revenues for anything you write, doesn't it? What exactly is the problem? Paul Fernhout wrote: > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > The risks you allude to may be real, but I don't yet see them. > > > > How is it that a MS could come to dominate in such a system? > > * US$40 billion cash in the bank. > > * Monopoly dominance on the desktop. > > * Historically effective marketing to senior executives. > > * Brand name recognition. > > * A proven "success". > > * MSDN subscription service for easy delivery of Microsoft code and > propaganda > > * Loyal developer network who knows VB, VC++, and MFC and can be easily > led. > > * Extensive and successful experience declawing the U.S. criminal > justice system. > > * If all else fails, hiring you for $1 million a year plus three months > vacation to start. :-) But seriously, they did this to Borland > engineers -- led to a law suit. > From: http://www.borland.com/about/mssuit.html > > Borland brings this action to stop Microsoft from systematically targeting > > and raiding Borland's employees. In the last two weeks, three Borland > > employees have been targeted and seduced away by Microsoft. > > Moreover, Microsoft has systematically engaged in a plan and a > > concerted course of action to unfairly compete with Borland in the > > software development tools ("tools") business by targeting and > > recruiting more than 34 of Borland's engineering and marketing > > employees over the last 30 months. Microsoft's actions were taken > > with the intent to deprive Borland of the resources Borland needs > > to successfully remain as the only significant competitor to Microsoft > > in the tools business. > > You also wrote: > > Especially if, say, > > a) Royalties were capped at 10 or 15% of a product's price. > > (So percentages would be the norm, rather than a flat fee.) > > > > b) The warehouse of code suppliers had everyone's stuff > > side by side, so even if MS's routine to do X were there, > > your routine would be right next to it, with pricing and > > user ratings, as well. So if your routine cost less, had a > > smaller footprint, and better ratings from users, why > > wouldn't I use it? > > There already is a warehouse of code on the internet (and in product > catalogs) and has been for some time. Most people are writing in Visual > Basic (and a little Visual C++) because it is from Microsoft and works > well in Microsoft Office. Maybe they can write a little SQL to go with > Microsoft access. That is the reality of (guessing) 80%+ of > non-mainframe data processing today. That is the powerful platform > Microsoft can leverage into their next big success. They are already > doing so, with .Net. So, they might patch your system on top of .Net > using Passport & such for the financial part. By various marketing > schemes (such as bundling a license to use all their code for one fee, > and otherwise threatening a code audit) they may succeed. Yes, a few > independent developers might make some real money for show. The rest of > us may feed off a few crumbs, if we can find work at all. > > One option for countering this? Friends help. A big company like IBM > (hardware&services) [or Intel (hardware) or even Sun > (hardware&services?)] allying with small developers through open source > and free software to level the playing field by creating a mostly free > infrastructure. Their strategies have been in this direction (Linux, > Java) with some success but may still need some more refining. Sun kind > of missed its chance to prevent something like Microsoft .Net with Java > by trying to hold it too tightly (just like ParcPlace messed up with > Smalltalk for similar reasons). Why will a company like IBM help? > Frankly, if all software was GPL, J.P. Morgan Chase would still hire IBM > to outsource their IT infrastructure over randomly trying to recruit you > or I; that's just how that sort of thing works. IBM knows this. But if > Microsoft owns the field, Microsoft will be better able to call these > shots and perhaps develop a more extensive service arm with a > competitive advantage, like Microsoft Office had a competitive advantage > from close coupling with the OS. > > The problem the last decade in software development for every business > plan has been -- "yeah it will work, but what do we do if Microsoft > notices?" > > That's what it means to be a monopoly, and that is why they are so bad. > > Listen to Microsoft -- right now the only thing scaring it is the GPL. > > You want quick adoption and your name in the press as a technical wizard > -- do a proprietary thing like you outline and let Microsoft buy it. > > You want to be called crazy and likely someday risk jail time as the > laws change for trying to help people, go with the the GPL or free > software approach. > > Look, John Deneen quotes Doug just now: > > "Difficulties with knowledge governance. - As another example of our > > still relatively primitive ability to deal with information exchange > > among groups, consider the chaotic and increasingly frightening > > direction of new laws regarding knowledge governance - most notably > > reflected in laws regarding copyright. Because it is generally > > technically advanced, one might think that my country, the United > > States, would be representative of leading edge capability to deal with > > knowledge governance and knowledge sharing. But, instead, we are > > passing increasingly draconian laws to protect the economic value of > > copies of information. In the US, we are even contemplating laws that > > would require hardware manufacturers to take steps to encrypt and > > protect copies (ref. 2). > > > > We are doing this while entering a digital era in which the marginal > > cost of a copy is zero - at a time where the very meaning and > > significance of the notion of "copy" has changed. It is as if we are > > trying to erect dikes, using laws, to keep the future from flooding in.. > > > > The immediate effect of all this is to enable a dramatic shift in > > control to the owners of information, away from the users of information > > (ref. 3) - a strategy which will almost certainly fail in the long run > > and that has confusing and probably damaging economic consequences in > > the short run. > > I've been listening on and off to the Kenneth C. Davis CD series "Don't > Know Much About the Civil War" and it is a real eye opener. > http://hallaudiobooks.com/general/263.shtml > It turns out, the same thing happened before the U.S. Civil War. With > much of the population of the U.S. was against slavery, increasingly > draconian laws were still passed supporting slavery including finally > the fugitive slave act of 1850 > http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm > requiring people to turn in fugitive slaves or themselves got to jail. > Things kept getting worse for slaves until ultimately people had to take > sides in a bloody conflict. The rhetoric of slave holders of that period > sounds very similar to the justification for increasing copyrights and > patents such as promoting commerce and a strong U.S. and further, > ironically, a call to support the human rights of slaveholders to do as > they wished with private property (slaves). And for those who think it > is disrespectful to equate aspects of current copyrights and patents > with the immorality of slavery, well, millions of people are dying from > drug patents in Africa, so there is the immorality and the body count > written large. > http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/aids_drugs.htm > Software patents are starting to deter innovation in the public commons, > which inhibits the creation of tools that may help every human gain > access to a common heritage of stories and information, which might > lengthen their individual life spans and increase the enjoyment they get > out of life. Perhaps the more I am drawn into all this the more I see > that ultimately this will be a moral, not economic, choice. > > In any case, I'm not going to stop you from making a proprietary system. > But, I did come to this forum from the start to make a "open source" OHS > and I still think that is worth pursuing if "permission to use" issue, > itself part of the legacy the OHS may be about resolving, can be > resolved. > > -Paul Fernhout > Kurtz-Fernhout Software > ========================================================= > Developers of custom software and educational simulations > Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator > http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 17:21:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0489656FF6; Tue, 14 May 2002 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4E4E56FF4 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 17:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-649-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.3.141]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BE8232A8 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 19:38:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE1AE4A.3C77119B@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:39:38 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE19B77.D9115E6F@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric Armstrong wrote: > > I don't see the issue. What about the system makes it more > domination-prone than other alternatives? What alternatives > do you suggest? The point is that we need a system that fights domination prone systems. Your system just is another domination prone one -- not a meta-domination-unprone one like the GPL. > Most importantly, if I google "gui toolkit" today, none of the > considerations below necessarily result in MS being the only > alternative I see -- or even the first alternative I see. Yes, but so what. They aren't used much in practice (and by that I mean not that they are invisible or that thousands don't use them, just that almost everybody uses VB and MFC.) > Tell me how the kinds of the user-rated sorted we've discussed > previously on this list would not completely obviate your concerns. Any kind of user feedback will improve things... Still doesn't mean the system can't be monopolized. > And finally, there is no one who would begrudge MS total > domination of the market, to the extent that is earned. Certainly > not I. If the functions I need consistently work better, faster, and > more reliability with software they provide, then they are more > than welcome to make a buck on any unit I sell. I would at this point. Do you really want to entrust all your personal data, all your medical records, all your bank balances, all your everything, to any one provider, no matter how good they are or seem to be now, when you can't have the foggiest notion of what is going on behind the scenes because it is proprietary. Do you want to use systems where you have no right to audit the vendor or their products, but you have to agree to let the vendor in your door to audit you accounts and your machines anytime they want (as Microsoft site licensors must agree to)? Do you want to use products whose licenses prohibit you from discussing them? Countries across the world are starting to reject Microsoft software and potentially full of hidden trapdoors and spyware and security problems. Do you want to undo that by giving their proprietary approach more power by making all systems in the world rest upon a fundamentally unfree approach? > Nor have you addressed the possibility of limiting revenue streams > to a pre-determined percentage of a sales price. Such a move > prevents some "monstor" from owning 99% of the revenues for > anything you write, doesn't it? Yeah, well copyrights were supposed to be for a limited time too. They are effectively infinite now. We'd probably see the "Bill Gates" revenue extension act to make the maximum 99.999% "to promote innovation" down the road. Remember, you have to assume Microsoft or another monopolist will set the policy. > What exactly is the problem? The problem is that proprietary software is unfree. Unfreedom in one arena of society may easily translate to unfreedom in other areas. It currently is. Unfreedom in drug laws has created and still sustains a variety of social ills as well as undermining respect for the justice system. Unfreedom in software and content will almost certainly do likewise, especially as laws get increasingly passed to restrict fair use and to ultimately force payment for every viewing. Or, as a story, this is the problem: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 18:09:32 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0037C56FF7; Tue, 14 May 2002 18:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4054356FF6 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 18:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01782 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 19:25:37 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4F1PYW27125 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE1B90E.929421AF@sun.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:25:34 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE19B77.D9115E6F@sun.com> <3CE1AE4A.3C77119B@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. But I thought that most people on this list disliked the viral nature of the GPL. As long as we're arguing by analogy, that's like saying that if you used my free textbook explaining the laws of physics, then everything you manufacture has to be free. Of course, I may misunderstand the GPL -- I've only listen with half an ear when these discussions go by. And there is a strong case that the world would have been better off without the profit incentive. We might still be living without plumbing, but at least we wouldn't be chewing up the ecosystem at such an alarming rate. But I think it's fair to say that the world would be a lot different than it turned out, had such a license been applied to books, as it is now being applied to software. I would say that if we basically don't want software development, because of its capacity for harm, then this is as good a way as any to prevent. Make it impossible to make a living at it, and certainly no "dominating force" will ever come into existence. Of course, there is a lot more that won't come into existence, as well, because we'll all be making a living selling cars and what not. We'll code for fun, but that's about it. I think the answer really lies in the middle ground somewhere. Unfettered capitalism is a disaster. Companies without conscience have made that clear. Socialism was equally a disaster. But well-constrained capitalism, like well-refereed football players, can have a lot of fun and get a lot done without hurting people. GPL strikes me as socialistic. MS strikes me as way to unfettered for anyone's taste. The middle ground strikes me as productive. Paul Fernhout wrote: > The point is that we need a system that fights domination prone systems. > Your system just is another domination prone one -- not a > meta-domination-unprone one like the GPL. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 14 19:05:04 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3DF8A56FF7; Tue, 14 May 2002 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:09:31 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-reply-to: <3CE1B90E.929421AF@sun.com> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Hi - Newsweek, 10/29/01 -- Microsoft has 11% of the $175B w/w packaged software market. That share doesn't seem to meet the classic description of a monopoly or even a very scary bogeyman. It is a healthy, well-earned chunk of a vibrant, competitive and wealth-producing global industry. Others, too busy to worry about MS, are earning the other $155B. That's all. -jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:26 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 02:28:53 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6712F56FF8; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13304.mail.yahoo.com (web13304.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.40]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1270256FF6 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020515094504.9820.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:45:04 PDT Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:45:04 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE1B90E.929421AF@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I am losing my patience with this discussion. > But I thought that most people on this list disliked > the viral nature of > the GPL. Untill the understand it. >>As long as we're arguing by analogy, that's > like saying > that if you used my free textbook explaining the > laws of physics, > then everything you manufacture has to be free. Wrong. > Of course, I may misunderstand the GPL -- I've only > listen with half > an ear when these discussions go by. Then dont talk about it. > > And there is a strong case that the world would have > been better > off without the profit incentive. GPL is not against profit, it is pro freedom. > Make it impossible to make a living at > it, and certainly > no "dominating force" will ever come into existence. This not an informed statement. I am getting sick of this discussion : What software is available for Online Hypertext Systems? What license is it under? Who has time to contribute to it? What license would you be willing to put your work under? GPL is my answer, and I would like to see some of these ideas that implemented in a way that we can use. People just like compaining about "free software" because they cannot make a quick buck off it like BSD licensed code. More people dont want to make a honest contribution, just take, take, take, complain, complain, complain. But if they need a compiler they are really happy that the GCC is there and works fine! Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 08:59:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A932E56FF3; Wed, 15 May 2002 08:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68D7256FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 08:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020515161556.DIUG12519.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:15:56 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020515091306.03aa42c0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:13:33 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] [ANN] New SVG list: svg-coders Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >From: Robin Berjon > >Howdy, > >sorry for cross-posting, but I think this message is of significant interest >to most, if not all, of you. > >I am writing to announce the birth of a new SVG mailing-list - "svg-coders". >This list aims at providing a discussion place for the more advanced SVG uses >dealing with interactivity, animation and server-side SVG applications. I >really hope we'll see some quality information exchanged out there. Following >concerns from many subscribers of the SVG-Developers mailing-list at >yahoogroups, this mailing-list will have its archives made public >automatically. This should help spreading the wealth of SVG information on >the Web. Tell all your friends about it and run to the mailing-list homepage >over at: > > http://svg.ilog.fr/mailman/listinfo/svg-coders/ > >You can also simply send an empty message with a "subscribe" body to >svg-coders-request@svg.ilog.fr in order to join the fun. Take it easy and >hope to see you soon at svg-coders@svg.ilog.fr! > >-- >Robin Berjon -- for hire: http://robin.berjon.com/ > Heisenberg may have been here. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an >initiative of OASIS > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 12:10:31 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7A5C856FF5; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29C7D56FF4 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020515192642.HSFG12519.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 19:26:42 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020515122213.03aa7c10@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:24:18 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Budapest Open Access Initiative Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ "The Budapest Open Access Initiative arises from a small but lively meeting convened in Budapest by the Open Society Institute (OSI) on December 1-2, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to accelerate progress in the international effort to make research articles in all academic fields freely available on the internet. The participants represented many points of view, many academic disciplines, and many nations, and had experience with many of the ongoing initiatives that make up the open access movement. In Budapest they explored how the separate initiatives could work together to achieve broader, deeper, and faster success. They explored the most effective and affordable strategies for serving the interests of research, researchers, and the institutions and societies that support research. Finally, they explored how OSI and other foundations could use their resources most productively to aid the transition to open access and to make open-access publishing economically self-sustaining. The result is the Budapest Open Access Initiative. It is at once a statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment." If you sign on to the initiative, you agree to independently re-publish whatever you publish elsewhere if that publication is not freely available. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 14:27:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C1B9456FF4; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A95356FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020515214321.IVCL14522.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 21:43:21 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020515143329.03aa7660@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:40:55 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] News related to OHS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Snippets from Free Online Scholarship Newsletter * The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has launched Scholars Portal, a suite of tools giving library patrons a single interface to the electronic resources on the web and in the user's library. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb020513-2.htm http://www.managinginformation.com/news/content_show_full.php?id=541 Scholars Portal is based in part on ARL's survey on how libraries use portal software. Here's a brief summary of the survey results. ARL will publish the full results later this year. http://www.arl.org/access/scholarsportal/prelim.html Scholars Portal http://www.arl.org/access/scholarsportal/index.html * The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) has released the beta of version 2.0 of its protocol for metadata harvesting. It is now available for downloading. The OAI metadata harvesting protocol is the standard for interoperable FOS archives. http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/openarchivesprotocol.htm * The Creative Commons will launch tomorrow. Currently the web site carries only an announcement, but check it again soon. The Creative Commons is a Lawrence Lessig initiative that will draft and print out custom licenses for authors, musicians, and other content creators who want to provide free online access to their works and yet retain enforceable rights e.g. to block the publication of mangled, misattributed, or commercial versions (see FOSN for 2/14/02). Authors will indicate the rights they wish to retain by checking boxes on a web from. Software at the site will then assemble a licensing agreement that assigns the remaining rights to the public domain. The creators will mark their online work with an icon that links back to the licensing agreement, which users may read in either a "lay" or a legalistic version. The project will also act as a conservancy for the content it licenses. The Creative Commons http://www.creativecommons.org * NASA has put online the proceedings of the Workshop on Experimental OAI-Based Digital Library Systems (Darmstadt, September 8, 2001). http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/tm/NASA-2002-tm211638.pdf * The National Centre for Science Information and the Indian Institute of Science have put online the proceedings of their workshop on Developing Digital Libraries using Open Source Software (April 15-20, Bangalore). The workshop focused on two open source packages, Eprints and Greenstone. http://144.16.72.189/opendl/ ---------- The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute. http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/ ========== This is the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter (ISSN 1535-7848). Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, you may subscribe by signing up at the FOS home page. FOS home page, general information, subscriptions, editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum Guide to the FOS Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm Sources for the FOS Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 14:47:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 18AB556FF5; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC3AB56FF4 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020515220346.JIWG24980.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 22:03:46 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020515145759.00b7cb10@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 15:01:21 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] An email organizer and more on blogs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In interesting email on interwingularity sent to me earlier today gave this url: http://guests.evectors.it/zoe/ Zoe appears to be an email client that combines a search engine and more. It's apparently free for personal use. Roam the site and you will see that it has received great reviews. Roaming the site, I traced over to this article at salon: "Use the blog, Luke" http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/05/10/blogbrain/print.html "The collective future of blogs lies not in dethroning the New York Times -- but in becoming a force that can make sense of the Web's infinity of links." From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 16:58:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 03EF656FF4; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AD4D56FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14585 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 18:14:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4G0EpW03557 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE2F9FA.68559487@sun.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:50 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <20020515094504.9820.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > But if they need a compiler they are really happy that > the GCC is there and works fine! Never used it. Never needed it. My last comment. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 17:47:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5999E56FF3; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail8.wlv.netzero.net (mail8.wlv.netzero.net [209.247.163.58]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2C9B56FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23730 invoked from network); 16 May 2002 01:03:51 -0000 Received: from 63-93-107-144.oak.dial.netzero.com (HELO netzero.net) (63.93.107.144) by mail8.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 16 May 2002 01:03:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3CE3057F.1CFDD2A3@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:03:59 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Some interesting HCI/Peirce-based ideas for OHS/Touchgraph Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org The B.E.S.T. (Bridging Economy and Society with Technology) beyond Internet 1999 - The "B.E.S.T. Beyond Internet" is an Open Framework research program which has been promoted within the interdisciplinary Ph. D. program "Telematics and Information Society" at the University of Firenze, just along the research path from the inidividual to technology in the Global Network using a new interdisciplinary research concept, with a systemic and integrated approach. < http://best.det.unifi.it/> RATIONALE The network and its applications are expected to deeply influence all kinds of human activities in a short time; * such a process will have significant effects on the life, work, relationships, of the individual, while inducing profound changes * on the human and subjective sphere of the individual, affecting mechanisms and context of human perception, * cognition and emotion, and eventually affecting social integration significantly as individual and economic subjects, * while modifying the way to exploit rights and duties related to the individual citizenship. The widespread and significant improvement of the quality of human life has thusfar to be considered the proper, final objective and engine of such an epochal transformation. OBJECTIVES * Widening adaptability to different user subjectivity, * Providing user personalized applications – intended in the deeper sense * Support instrumental and symmetric exploitation of User Profiles (UP) * (UP) effective production, updated management, use and safeguard under control of the user himself or of someone acting on hisbehalf < http://best.det.unifi.it/publications/presHCI/MCP.pdf > Human subjectivity is the key factor to be exploited in order to achieve a balanced and stable progress towards the Global Network; such subjectivity exploitation must be directly under the control of the end user of the Network itself. * Systematically exploiting and balancing users’ subjectivity in operating interactions and relations * Matching instrumental and technological network evolution to subjectivity factors * Inherently matching the different cultural, social and economic contexts * Thus allowing a stable development of the network towards Universal Access to the new Information- Communication- Knowledge Society This will eventually lead to a more symmetric setting of different users and actors within the Network, be they end users or providers. The economic, cultural and social contexts of the individual, have, therefore, to be carefully accounted in the effective exploitation of human subjectivity. BEYOND Proper matching of the human subjectivity factors in the Global Network requires new technological and operational advances, thus implying a Network evolution at all its levels, going beyond the Internet itself. Network matching for instrumental exploitation of human subjectivity, also to allow widespread opportunities and symmetric capabilities of relationship and interaction among the network subjects, is therefore a transdisciplinary research and development line to be systematically pursued in order to: * match compatibility with the different cultural, social and economic contexts * allow the balanced, then stable, development of the Network towards the Universal Access to the new Information-Communication-Knowledge Society. C A L L F O R C O O P E R A T I O N The support and cooperation of external subjects is called for increase the capability of the B.E.S.T. beyond Internet program to obtain significant results within its research framework. Research activities are indeed developed within the "B.E.S.T. beyond Internet" program in different ways: * Independent activity within the program; this is carried out independently within the program, based on the internal resources available, autonomously or through free contribution/funding from external bodies. This is typically devoted to "exploratory studies" or "basic research" * Activity in cooperation with external bodies; this activity is jointly carried out in cooperation with external bodies on objectives of common interest pertaining to the program. It can be any of the types of research activity highlighted previously ("exploratory studies", "basic research", "task oriented research projects", "experimentation in Pilot Trials"). * Independent and linked activity of external bodies; this can autonomously and independently be carried out by external bodies to concur in the achievement of the Program objectives, while keeping the necessary and agreed link with the internal activity of the Program. Parties interested in cooperating can contact the B.E.S.T. beyond Internet core team Email: best_core@achille.det.unifi.it http://best.det.unifi.it/people_core.htm http://best.det.unifi.it/people_asso.htm Cognitive subsystem functions * The Tutor Agent is supposed to properly understand End User’s queries through Natural Language * The Tutor Agent must correctly interact with the Global Network through Web-like languages * The Shared Knowledge Space should be a database where Users belief in Network resources is shared and exploited * End User’s profile can be properly used and safely managed through the Tutor Agent and Trust Intermediaries * The Tutor Agent implements the “Subjectivizing Engine” through the Actuative subsystem Basic Logic Platform * The Resolution Layer: This layer performs a personalized meta-data structuration on the data flows, thus making it possible for the higher layers to properly manage them, and to the proposed system to be independent from the transport layers (XML might be here the leading technology). * The Localization Layer: This layer is responsible for showing the End User a unique view on his/her Global Network Resources, which are structured in personalized DNS-like location trees and addressed through Uniform Resource Names defined by the End User. Global Network Data Streams * Flow coloring concept must be extended to subjectivity * It could be possible to classify Global Network data streams depending on their subjective value to the End User * Formal Communications (working e-mails) * Informal Communications (friendly communications,..) * Commercial Transactions (user’s money is concerned) * Emergency (critical information, civil protection information, tele-medicine data, and concerning general public emergency situations) * Tele-action flows through which end users are performing actions by using the Global Network * Information and Application data download/search BEST Functions Example * Flow coloring concept must be extended to subjectivity * It could be possible to classify Global Network data streams depending on their subjective value to the End User * Formal Communications (working e-mails, ...) * Informal Communications (friendly communications,..) * Commercial Transactions (user’s money is concerned) * Emergency (critical information, civil protection information, tele-medicine data, and concerning general public emergency situations) * Tele-action flows through which end users are performing actions by using the Global Network * Information and Application data download/search Peirce’s vision: August 8-10 2001, HCI 2001, New Orleans USA 19/23 16. Semiosis Meanings of expressions cannot be represented by a tree-like format (the dictionary), that is in terms of combinations of metasemiotic constructs, the nodes (no longer interpretable). In Peirce’s vision, meaning is a (potentially) infinite series of other expression (interpretants), which may be different descriptions (experiential, scientific, etc.), Minsky’s frames (scenarios), etc., which virtually cover all knowledge people share about a concept, in different cultural sub-contexts. The Global Semantic Space is an encyclopedia endowed with contextual selectors (Eco). The process of semiosis (from the expression to the meaning) is also (potentially) unlimited because any “interpretant” (e.g. a textual description) needs to be interpreted and its terms brings to new concepts (and its interpretants). For humans, semiosis is constrained by the current topic, and the interpretation is temporarily accepted if the global reading is felt as semantically coherent by the reader. In COllaborative System Architecure (COSA) our research group has developed a collaborative environments development framework, by defining several “worlds” as End User’s localization systems and “avatars” as his/ her Tutor Agents Through COSA, the Basic Logic Platform (Resolution and Localization layers) of the proposed architecture has been implemented COSA is a platform built with XML and DNS- like technologies < http://best.det.unifi.it/publications/presHCI/GV.pdf > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 20:07:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5A21C56FF3; Wed, 15 May 2002 20:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6A4256FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 20:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1240-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.224]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36FA22F5B for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 22:24:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE326B8.1053E03D@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:25:44 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John- But it is the core 11% -- based on controlling a 90%+ OS share and a 90%+ key office application suite share which just about every other application rests on. That other 89% is for the most part playing catchup to Microsoft and jumps through whatever hoops Microsoft holds up -- either technical or legal. Also, Microsoft owns probably at least 80% share of the software developers tools market. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-836235.html > According to the most recent study from researcher IDC, the C++ and Visual > Basic languages are most popular among software developers. More than 3 > million developers use C and C++ as their primary language for writing > software, followed by 2.3 million using Visual Basic, > and 1.2 million using Java, IDC reports. Admittedly, Linux and Java have nibbled at Microsoft's dominance, and have been increasing. What part of "monopoly" (as agreed to by the U.S. Department of Justice) am I not conveying? Why doesn't that word have any negative connotations anymore? Why is it now what everyone aspires to be as we honor Bill Gates because he is rich and because he controls a standard of dubious historical technical merit? I say dubious since QNX around twenty years ago did more stuff more elegantly (load/unload all drivers, transparent network access of all devices on all machines, real time control) than the latest version of Windows does even today. Let's look at this another way. Total worldwide IT market spending is about $1.24 trillion dollars. http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175829.html So, putting your figure together with this figure, if for some reason all packaged software worldwide was to be forced under law to be put in the public domain, there would still be a robust 85%+ of present day money to be made in IT ($1065B). Should we sell our freedoms for that 14% extra revenues to be made? Is the force of innovation really served here as far as where the majority (85%) of IT dollars are spent (in house)? Sorry, I don't see how the numbers by themselves support any argument for the economic significance of proprietary software, other than the fact that by controlling the OS, core application suite, and key development tools, one company has IT professionals worldwide tightly under its influence. Grinding through the figures again, we see that by controlling the right 1.5% of core IT spending in part through what the U.S. Justice Department has said are illegal monopolistic practices, Microsoft has put itself in the position to set the ground rules for how most programmers do their job and define the knowledge almost all programmers must learn to remain employed. Are programmers as individuals better off when their core knowledge is defined by Microsoft as opposed to an open community (such as if all code were under the GPL)? The current situation for programmers is like if 90% of lawyers could only practice Microsoft law, using Microsoft controlled stationery and forms, which Microsoft changed whenever it suited itself, with little regard to whether this would impact lawyer's productivity or their ability to win current cases. Would lawyers stand for this? Why are many programmers defending this sad state of Microsoft dominated affairs? Well, in part because many programmers have already learned the Microsoft way of doing things, and have a stake in keeping those skills valuable by getting others to use Microsoft products, making the Microsoft monopoly sadly even more entrenched. It is true many programmers upset with Microsoft domination jumped onto the Java bandwagon -- unfortunately since specially early on much of Java was just hype (compared say to Smalltalk which had long delivered and still delivered) when reality caught up with hype (and greed), Java momentum stalled, and Microsoft moved in with .Net, the next thing 90% of programmers will need to learn to remain employable. If marijuana is illegal, why should not Microsoft software also be illegal, since it is apparently a far more addictive substance used by programmers often to their own and society's long term detriment? -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com John Maloney wrote: > > Hi - > > Newsweek, 10/29/01 -- > > Microsoft has 11% of the $175B w/w packaged software market. > > That share doesn't seem to meet the classic description of a monopoly or > even a very scary bogeyman. > > It is a healthy, well-earned chunk of a vibrant, competitive and > wealth-producing global industry. > > Others, too busy to worry about MS, are earning the other $155B. > > That's all. > > -jtm > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:26 PM > To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing > > Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 20:19:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6588656FF3; Wed, 15 May 2002 20:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBF9456FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 20:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1240-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.224]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F4F23180 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 22:36:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE32977.34D92601@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:37:27 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE19B77.D9115E6F@sun.com> <3CE1AE4A.3C77119B@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE1B90E.929421AF@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric Armstrong wrote: > > Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. True, though we can try to keep things cordial. I have the greatest respect for your abilities and insights. > But I thought that most people on this list disliked the viral nature of > the GPL. Well apparently some do, and some don't. > As long as we're arguing by analogy, that's like saying > that if you used my free textbook explaining the laws of physics, > then everything you manufacture has to be free. Well, to be clearer, assumign such were the case, it woudl say if you freely choose to use this textbook, then you must freely give of the results. But, you don't have to use the book. Contrast this with the situation where someone like Microsoft says, everyone is using this book, and so you must use it, and by the way, to use it you need to pay this tax of 10% of revenues plus your first born. > Of course, I may misunderstand the GPL -- I've only listen with half > an ear when these discussions go by. They can be vexing and convoluted, I agree. > And there is a strong case that the world would have been better > off without the profit incentive. We might still be living without > plumbing, but at least we wouldn't be chewing up the ecosystem > at such an alarming rate. We may not have plumbing much longer if the profit motive driving the creation of weapons of mass destruction continues... > But I think it's fair to say that the world would be a lot different > than it turned out, had such a license been applied to books, as > it is now being applied to software. I might point out that a long time ago copyright was a lot shorter, and things still got published -- like Shakespeare. In fact, if copyright was logner then, current dominant players liek Disney coudl not have reworked folk tales into franchises. > I would say that if we basically don't want software development, > because of its capacity for harm, then this is as good a way as any > to prevent. Make it impossible to make a living at it, and certainly > no "dominating force" will ever come into existence. I disagree. Your assumption here is code only gets developed as an investment for resale. Sorry. As I pointed out in a prior reply to John Maloney today, only about 15% of IT dollars are spent on shrinkwrapped software (using various figures). So, the other 85% would still be spent regardless. The issue is more, do programmers learn the rules defined by a dominant for-profit organization like Microsoft, or do they learn the rules of a free community? > Of course, there is a lot more that won't come into existence, as > well, because we'll all be making a living selling cars and what not. > We'll code for fun, but that's about it. Again, over a trillion dollars a year would still be spent on IT if all shrinkwrapped software was free. > I think the answer really lies in the middle ground somewhere. > Unfettered capitalism is a disaster. Companies without conscience > have made that clear. Socialism was equally a disaster. But > well-constrained capitalism, like well-refereed football players, > can have a lot of fun and get a lot done without hurting people. All motives are "selfish" -- just the definition fo self changes, sometimes smaller (meme, person), sometimes larger (family, company, community, gaia). > GPL strikes me as socialistic. MS strikes me as way to unfettered > for anyone's taste. The middle ground strikes me as productive. Politicians tried the middle ground before in the Civil War with the Missouri compromise. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511.html Worked for a while (ignoring the suffering of slaves, or nowadays, millions of Aids victims each year in Africa). Didn't work in the end, and lead to one of the most bloody conflicts in U.S. history. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com > Paul Fernhout wrote: > > > The point is that we need a system that fights domination prone systems. > > Your system just is another domination prone one -- not a > > meta-domination-unprone one like the GPL. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 15 23:03:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9A5C856FF3; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45B7E56FF2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23203; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4G6JPW20593; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE34F6D.E860FADB@sun.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:19:25 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, hm Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020513095609.00dcf640@thinkalong.com> <3CE04A7E.EA25D572@kurtz-fernhout.com> <4.2.2.20020513174557.00dfe340@thinkalong.com> <3CE08D35.E8D51C4E@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE0AB34.91B019C7@sun.com> <3CE100A4.3AD5D02@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE17E66.3F9E9BD5@sun.com> <3CE197D0.DD5E28E7@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE19B77.D9115E6F@sun.com> <3CE1AE4A.3C77119B@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE1B90E.929421AF@sun.com> <3CE32977.34D92601@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Well, Paul. Your kind words and gracious attitute have thawed out my decision not to post further thoughts on this topic. I started to respond privately, but some ideas came up in the process that it seemed important to share. So.... Paul Fernhout wrote: > > And there is a strong case that the world would have been better > > off without the profit incentive. We might still be living without > > plumbing, but at least we wouldn't be chewing up the ecosystem > > at such an alarming rate. > > We may not have plumbing much longer if the profit motive driving the > creation of weapons of mass destruction continues... And that's only one of the *many* ways in which we have the capacity to do ourselves in. We might erase every tree on the planet, heat the planet into a desert, pollute ourselves out of water or air, not to mention the nanobots and self-replicating machines that Bill Joy warned us about. > > I would say that if we basically don't want software development, > > because of its capacity for harm, then this is as good a way as any > > to prevent. Make it impossible to make a living at it, and certainly > > no "dominating force" will ever come into existence. > > I disagree. Your assumption here is code only gets developed as an > investment for resale. Sorry. As I pointed out in a prior reply to John > Maloney today, only about 15% of IT dollars are spent on shrinkwrapped > software (using various figures). So, the other 85% would still be spent > regardless. Good point. However, I have wanted to make a living by putting my ideas out into the world for some 30 years, now. Always, though, I am consumed by the necessity of putting *others'* ideas into the world, in order to feed my face. At last count, I have 3 books, 15 programs, several articles, and 10 different product ideas in various stages of development. If I can just get one of them to start developing an income stream, then another, then another -- eventually I may have the freedom to devote to the projects I really consider important -- like 3 dimensional farming, community building, and social reorganization. A software ecology makes it possible to publish things that get used by others, and to use things others publish to build other things in a way that costs me nothing except a piece of the pie when someone buys things. It may turn out that nothing accrues. But that is no different from where I sit today. On the other hand, today I need to create a whole organization in order to profit from my ideas in way, shape, or form. That means constructing a whole product, doing the testing, etc, and charging an arm and a leg for it, because it takes a serious profit to run the shop and repay the investors who made it happen. In a software ecology, on the other hand, any given module is tested over and over by everyone who uses it. When I link them together, there is much less risk. If all of the bugs tend to be surface bugs, as a result, then debugging is vastly simplified. So a large team isn't needed. And if my stuff can be found by searching, a lot of marketing isn't needed, either. Result: I can make a small amount on each transaction and still make out great. So software of that kind would be vastly cheaper. Then, too, for the 85% of the software you mention, there would be no transaction! Therefore, there would be no royalites to share. In such cases, the module I create would derive no revenue. At least not today. But one day, maybe it would. Since all those modules would be out there, hoping to make money one day, those 85% of the projects would have a whole lot of good stuff to choose from, all for free! That would promote lots of component reuse, and be a much better situation than today. True, Big Green might make a library with all kinds of great stuff that people buy. But my little module would still be out there, and people could use it for free. Then, if they make a bigger widget or a product and whatever -- and if they sell it -- then I get my dollar. (Note that I am assuming some sort a fail-safe system tracking and remuneration system here -- not that I see any practical implementation of same on the horizon. This is just blue-sky thinking.) To continue in the assumption business, I'm assuming that all this revenue sharing and whatnot is totally automated. There's no bookkeeping for me to take care of -- just a monthly report that shows me what came in, who got what out of it, and how much went into my bank account after all was said and done. Hey, I got $32 from Amazon last month from people who bought books featured on my web site. That's pretty cool. If I *was* living on mortgage-free land with a 3-dimension forest farm on it that took care of my basic needs, that $32 would go a long way!! :_) The basic trap here is that we indenture ourselves at birth, because we have no knowledge of how to survive outside of a work-a-day life. (It's kind of scary, too, after a failed startup and bankruptcy, knowing that the moment you get incapacitated and stop producing, for whatever reason, you'll be homeless and on the street in a finite number of months.) The way out of that trap starts with 3-dimensional farming, I believe. And it continues by willing our land to others with similar beliefs, or selling it for a dollar. A little over an acre can support 10 people, plus assorted wildlife. It can put oxygen back in the air, reduce water consumption (in comparison with hot-sun farming, which needs so *much*, and help counter-act the greenhouse effect. That's 10 people who could be starting little cottage industries and living well on $100 or $200 a month. Wouldn't that be cool?! Software development and information-work are cottage industries that can actually work in such settings. But the income you'd need to generate would be very, very small. And if you didn't work at all, it's not like you wouldn't eat, or have no place to sleep. You'd just have to skip the restaurants and movies, or not get that 10,000th book that just *has* to be added to the library. Now that would be cool. But my most recent counter-culture brainstorm was that if we essentially give away "our" land when we die -- to the right people, with the proviso that they won't go selling it to someone else for a huge bundle of bucks -- then we start to make corporations more and more irrelevant. In effect, we can dry up their power base by taking away the oil that drives them. If you don't need thousands of dollars every year just to make the mortage or rent payments, then you don't need to work for those large companies. And if you don't need to be super productive to compete, in order to keep your job and get ahead, then you don't need to buy the stuff they produce, and you don't need to work at a job you hate -- at least not for than the few hours it takes to be able to got to a movie once in a while. If one person gives away land to make a dozen people free, it's a start. But if the idea spreads and more people start doing it, it's a movement. And if the idea really becomes popular, then your grandkids can be *free*. Even Mr. Forbes, bless his huge heart and great intelligence, realizes that giving his millions to his kids would only create a lazy, monied aristocracy. So he vows that in his will, he arranges things so his kids will have to make their own way. That is just awesome, in my book. Of course they will have the advantages of the best schools and great contacts, and I think that's great, too. They'll even have a head start, and that's a good thing. But fundamentally, what we're talking about here is a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity, and THAT is what it's all about. In America, no one hates the rich because we all know (rightly or wrongly) that we could be there, too, one day. In Europe, there has been in the past, at least, a long tradition of hating the rich, dating back to the landed aristocracy that was born with wealth and did nothing whatever to earn it. The difference is in the equality of opportunity. Forbes is wise enough and decent enough to see it, but even giving his millions away will do little to change the system. A few kids will have some number of thousands to start life with, instead of millions. But it we start giving away land, and seeing how to make it produce in ways that are in harmony with nature -- ways that take 4 hours a week for 16,000 sq. ft., with no plowing, fertilizing, weeding, pesticides, or herbicides -- ways that produce up to 15 tons per acre, and completely the supply the produce needs of the people who live on it -- then we can completely reengineer society and make companies the servants of people, instead of their masters. That's the kind of thing I'd like to be spending more of my time on. But I spend much of my time figuring out how to make a living, instead. A software ecology could play an important role in that picture, both for me personally, and for society as a whole. thanks again :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 07:43:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0497F56FF3; Thu, 16 May 2002 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13305.mail.yahoo.com (web13305.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.41]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1ED056FF2 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020516145934.74891.qmail@web13305.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 07:59:34 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:59:34 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, hm In-Reply-To: <3CE34F6D.E860FADB@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric, > Well, Paul. Your kind words and gracious attitute > have thawed out > my decision not to post further thoughts on this > topic. I was harsh on you in my mail. I don't want to bring a bad attitude into this mailling list. I have respect for your opinions. Every has to be a right to have an opinion on the GPL, and I also had misunderstandings that about it. So what it is worth, I am sorry for my tone in my mail to you, I will be more cordial in my future posts. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 08:11:08 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E6CD056FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6176756FF3 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020516152718.WPVV19355.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:27:18 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020516082124.00de2330@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:24:55 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This post seems like a great way to think about elements and attributes. Here's an example of using attributes for data: Here's the same example using elements Joe 33 Clearly more verbose. Simon is talking about combining the two in an effective manner. Cheers Jack >From: "Simon St.Laurent" >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > >I've been doing more thinking about the PSVI and poking around at ASN.1 >and Web Services. Then I went outside to work on some drainage ditches, >and had a few more ideas. > >It's striking me more and more that developers, myself included, have >done a poor job of examining and explaining how markup works and what >the parts do best. That extends to a key discussion which is generally >considered dull but radioactive: the elements/attributes distinction. > >A lot of people have been storing data in attributes rather than in >element content. There are lot of reasons for this, ranging from a more >compact form to simpler processing in SAX. (Attributes are presented as >a convenient group, while you have to wait for child elements) > >The problem with using attributes for data is that there is no direct >way to associate metadata with attribute content. There is a very easy >direct way to associate metadata with element content - it's called >attributes. Adding additional information about attributes requires >either external sources (DTDs, schemas) or XPath (which I believe XForms >uses) or various ad-hocery. Direct serialization of any of this gets >ugly very quickly. > >There are a lot of other symptoms of this problem. Namespace issues >around unprefixed attributes are one, though unqualified is only a >problem if you assume the attributes are their own atoms of information, >not merely additional description/refinement of the element type. W3C >XML Schema has made this situation a bit crazier with the notion of >unqualified elements, and SOAP's made common practice of it. > >To some extent, the misuse arose because attributes had features >(defaulting, free order, some types, enumeration) that elements didn't >have. W3C XML Schema condones those practices for attributes and >extends the same features to elements. Maybe this is an improvement, >maybe it isn't. > >In any case, it seems like many of the PSVI-representation difficulties >could be relieved by a best practice of using elements for the >information contained in a document and using attributes exclusively to >provide additional information about the element. > >Separating markup from content - and putting attributes squarely in the >markup side - seems like one means of at least alleviating the headache. > >-- >Simon St.Laurent >Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets >Errors, errors, all fall down! >http://simonstl.com > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an >initiative of OASIS > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 08:11:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id AB00356FF5; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FC8656FF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1387-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.6.117]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9FF23EF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 10:28:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE3D070.5AE022B0@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:29:52 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <20020515094504.9820.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > I am losing my patience with this discussion. [Psst.. Don't encourage him... :-) ] Yeah, I know the frustration. See: http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion/1905.html http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ohs-dev/0246.html Essentially, it seems as much as Doug originally said OHS would be open source, it seems to me this particular community is having trouble making that commitment in actuality (i.e. offering actual code and content for use under a specific license) because most of its members and core leadership have historically implicitly or explicitly expected grant money to directly fund the work and its future enhancement, and many other participants are here thinking they can make money proprietarizing the result somehow (or integrating their current proprietary approaches into it). Otherwise "permission to use" would have been resolved two years ago. In part that is because any community is self-selecting. I've had some open source or free software developers write to me saying essentially this community doesn't know how to run an open source of free software development effort and so they are not participating, and thus their voice is not hear here (or heard only rarely, such as just now with you). They move on to other things. I know some people here may think I'm just muckraking (or paranoid), but I really do want Doug's vision to succeed (commingled with that of others), and I think some key early decisions related to UnRevII are blocking that success on a practical basis (as much as they may have seemed to make sense at the time). Unfortunately, this "permission to use" liability indemnification issue especially as regards software patents has tied my own hands in terms of contributing OHS code under the GPL or any other free license, which otherwise might have been the most immediate way around these objections by just delivering something that works and others might want to use and enhance. But, I can't in good conscious make such contributions both exposing myself to damages for possible infringement of bogus software patents as well as in my opinion unfairly privileging both Bootstrap and Stanford to do what they like with the code (including keeping it all proprietary or reselling it to Microsoft) and setting such an example for others to follow. Personally, I have much empathy with the portrait of the starving artist Eric paints, because no one in today's society wants to confront the fear or reality of not being able to make a decent income by U.S. standards while they pursue what they think is an important and socially valuable mission. Many public school teachers face this reality every day, and they are true heros even if unsung and not given enough respect. And the rest of our society is so messed up regarding managing the public commons that funding alternatives are difficult to find. Consider this hot news item: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/15/1622246&mode=thread&tid=156&threshold=2 > "OSDN's NewsForge reports that > Carnegie Mellon University has started a Sustainable Computing > Consortium to improve the quality and security of software. The > only news release is that NASA gave CMU $23 million to help > create dependable software. SCC members get an internal-use > license for SCC software. So taxpayers are paying millions to > create proprietary software, and companies get access for a few > thousand dollars. The UnRevII OHS project has been shaking the NASA money tree to do open source or free software OHS stuff in one of Doug's self-improving Network Improvement Communities and what does NASA do? Gives 10X the money for proprietary works. Obviously something very deep in our culture is really messed up here. I'm not explicitly blaming NASA culture here, since they do much great free stuff, just the more general U.S. funding culture for digital public works it is embedded in and which spills into it. I just wrote something humorous about a satirical presidential speech defending the need for proprietary laws & related micropayments and I'll post a link to it when it is up somewhere. Would have posted it here under the GFDL license if "permission to use" was resolved. Obviously, at some point discussion threads that are circular or repetitive should be ended. Still, I think if a goal is to get more people to consider the value of free software for various applications, we must remember that the audience (of lurkers) is often larger than the person to which we are communicating, and so even if the individual we are writing to in a public forum may never see the value in what we are saying, others might (and we may never know who). With that said, I think Eric's a sharp guy, and makes some good points, and if we don't have valid answers to each and every point he raises, no matter how often he (or I :-) raises the same thing, we need to get them. Why do I still bother? I don't know, maybe I find lost causes a creative challenge. Still, Doug's innovative legacy and humane aims deserve better than to be made part of a new order of repression or to be argued into the ground. Here is one alternative that might be easier to do at first than repeal "permission to use" for existing lists. Can someone get people with legal authority at both Bootstrap Institute and Stanford to both agree in writing that they do not consider UnRevII's "permission to use" to cover granting them any extra rights to GPL'd OHS code or GFDL'd OHS discussions & content beyond the rights contributors grant them under the GPL or GFDL (i.e. indemnification would not apply)? That is, they need to agree specifically to waivew these rights one one project or they need prefreably to agree in general that such activities are not considered "extended" UnRevII activities under "permission to use". http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/permission.html If they can go even that far, we can start an official UnRevII inspired GPL'd OHS project and a GFDL OHS discussion list & content nucleus and I'm sure others would help us make it a success (even if some of them have passed on being involved to date). That is very much in keeping with the letter and spirit of open source and free software, and Doug's early statements on free licensing which drew attention to the OHS effort. And frankly, I think in an ironic twist, Bootstrap, Stanford, and participants now here will in the end make more money by allowing this to happen. Summary: I'm saying some early decisions like "permission to use" (as much as they may have seemed to make sense at the time) could be revised to better allow more bootstrapping to occur, and that is what this community is supposed to be about. If not everyone here would want to move in that new GPL/GFDL direction, they are free to move in other proprietary directions, or start projects under other free or open source licenses. ===== By the way, on your original point on a self-referential GPL program that writes out its own source code under a different license (referenced in "More bad news about the GPL License: Fwd: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts" Wed, 17 Apr 2002): I don't think that is legally a problem because the output would be so similar to the original and so based on it that it would be considered under the copyright laws as a derived work, and its licensing would then be covered by relevant law. I remember years ago a related issue coming up of why GCC compiled programs weren't also under the GPL since their structures to an extend reflected GCC internals, and the answer was that the FSF made a special exception in this single case. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=31phcn%24hpo%40hermes.synopsys.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgnu.misc.discuss%2Bgpl%2Bgcc%2Boutput%2Bexception%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D31phcn%2524hpo%2540hermes.synopsys.com%26rnum%3D1 >From there: > Anyway, the GPL says: > > ... the output from the Program > is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. > > I've read here on many occasions that the FSF doesn't consider the output > of GCC to constitute a work based on the program. I don't know where this > is stated in print, though. So I don't think it is valid to reason from saying since GCC compiled programs are not GPL, that any GPL system can do this (since other code would not have this special exemption). Whether that is a loophole with the GCC code given this exception, maybe, but in practice I doubt it because the intent of what was happening seems clearly different legally speaking (but I am not a lawyer, and who knows what a judge would decide). Note the phrasing above "Whether that is true depends on what the Program does". Clearly the issues you raise touch on this issue of what the program does. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 09:35:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DB4A856FF9; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:47:06 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-reply-to: <3CE326B8.1053E03D@kurtz-fernhout.com> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul, Thanks for your message. Diffusion of common operating systems technology and frictionless syndication has played a large part in creating the $1.24 trillion dollars spent annually on IT. Like all legitimate business propositions, MS, with all its warts, has created many multiples more of wealth for others that it has taken. That's the fact Jack. BTW, that figure is 'commercial grade' and specifically excludes entertainment software, education software, telephony, video or audio, etc. Those markets are massive -- surprisingly large, and MS doesn't really have a foothold. It is, however, a significant enabler. These staggering numbers make the MS share even smaller, and less significant. Look, do you think millions of developers, service providers, hardware vendors, users, etc., have been duped? They aren't chumps. They are apparently successful and happy, to the note of $1065B, with only a TINY, miniscule share-of-wallet for the demon MS. Having said that, the reality of the democratic Web is -just- beginning to hit the MS product cycles. To wit, "Partners can make or break .Net," Governor said. -and- "It's a major overhaul. We get a chance about once a decade to take everything we've learned and create a new way of building applications," said John Montgomery, group product manager for Microsoft's .Net Developer Platform. This is the soft white underbelly of MS. The transition will be far more difficult than they think. It like the shift from a mainframe perspective to a PC perspective. Your last great so-called computing monopoly, IBM, cratered badly during this transition. Ironically, it created your next hobgoblin, MS. And so it goes. The real point of the message was try to ameliorate the clinical preoccupation with MS in ba-ohs-talk. It is dysfunctional and a real bore. It does not advance OHS one whit. It is distracting and paranoid. Should we change the name to ba-MS-'axe-to-grind'-talk@bootstrap.org? Also note that Microsoft is fundamentally a Sales and Marketing company, not a software company. Expecting software innovation from them is a farce. Let's try and move the ball forward and stay on-topic. Cheers, John -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Paul Fernhout Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:26 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing John- But it is the core 11% -- based on controlling a 90%+ OS share and a 90%+ key office application suite share which just about every other application rests on. That other 89% is for the most part playing catchup to Microsoft and jumps through whatever hoops Microsoft holds up -- either technical or legal. > Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 11:13:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 53F2856FF6; Thu, 16 May 2002 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 16 May 2002 10:12 PDT From: Doug Engelbart - Bootstrap Institute To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Cc: meilin@ix.netcom.com, krobbins@amtech-usa.org, jackpark@thinkalong.com, eekim@eekim.com Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-Id: <20020516181345.53F2856FF6@bi0.bootstrap.org> It is past time for me to speak up about "Licensing" and IP in general. Here are what seem to me to be relevant thoughts; if they do not provide adequate answers, please quietly and instructively cue me in about what's needed for you. My general attitude is that emergent capabilities of new and forthcoming technologies, among other impacts upon our world, will enable us humans to extend our ability to manipulate and portray symbols in remarkably novel ways. Way beyond visual print symbols -- e.g. to include special "signal-codes" presented to our eyes, ears, noses, taste buds, touch, movement, temperature, skin-hair tugs, ... etc. Here, very complex combinations and sequencing offer us new "symbols" and new "symbol structures" providing a huge increase beyond current languages in meaningful communications and knowledge. For this "IP discussion," it is enough for me here to characterize the continued evolution of the augmentation of our Collective IQ as relating closely to the evolution of "natural languages." E.g., the form of English which we are using in this forum. And, dipping lightly into the object-oriented vernacular, the software for manipulating and portraying the symbol structures in our natural language need to be as free and open in the evolution and use of their objects and methods as are the vocabulary terms and syntactic rules of a natural language. Also to be considered are the huge number of evolutionary paths ahead of us, and the challenge of facilitating the evolutionary processes to find us the best paths and for us to become collectively smart enough in the ridiculously short time of say the next decade or so to cope with all the other disruptive, crippling threats caused by the associated, over-rapid, huge-scale, pervasive changes. So, to my limited experience, it seems that GPL licensing would be best for objects and methods representing the verbs, nouns, modifiers, etc. of the Natural Language of our Augmented Future. The roads, bridges, traffic laws, intersection rules and controls, parking facilities, etc. don't seem to be controlled by private enterprise and free-market rules. So, I ask, how would each of the current licensing types encourage, curtail, stifle, or etc. the evolution of an OHS and the "natural language of the future?" ***** And about the constraints on current interchanges: I'm definitely for removing them, and we're getting lawyer help in untangling the holdover, initial arrangements made with Stanford for the mutual BI-Stanford activities during the 10-week Colloqium. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 11:50:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9D07756FFD; Thu, 16 May 2002 11:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E33CF56FFC for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 11:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020516190710.ZCQS8004.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 19:07:10 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020516120346.00de4100@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:04:39 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] The Open For Business Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.ofbiz.org/ "The Open For Business Project is an open source project that provides tools and applications for business based on Sun's J2EE standard. The project is intended to be open and used by a large group of people. Because of that it is licensed using the MIT Open Source License. The MIT license allows adopters of the technology to customize, use and even sell it as desired with no obligations other than a release of liability and a copyright acknowledgement for the original source. The vision of the Open For Business Project is to embrace and enable "The 5 'E's": Ease of Cost Ease of Installation Ease of Customization Ease of Integration Ease of Use On an application level this means providing open source best practices applications based on a flexible framework. The flexible framework includes a number of standard tools in addition to the custom tools provided by the Open For Business Project. The goals behind the design of the tools and applications are as follows: Express process, rule, and data definitions in natural languages or XML formats Minimize the code and work needed to implement functionality Maximize the reuse of existing components The end result of focusing on these goals is that applications will be built, customized, and integrated fast and cheap. A person that is familiar with the tools and applications in Open For Business will be able to quickly and cheaply produce custom software that satisfies the needs of any individual, business or organization." From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 12:24:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5B08356FF3; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA16B56FF2 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28614 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GJejW23162 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE40B3D.B7E7B46D@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:40:45 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020516181345.53F2856FF6@bi0.bootstrap.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Doug Engelbart - Bootstrap Institute wrote: > The roads, bridges, traffic laws, intersection rules and controls, parking > facilities, etc. don't seem to be controlled by private enterprise and > free-market rules. Spectacular observation. The freedom to go where you want to go, coupled with a variety of limitations on possible destinations (e.g. military facilities) and ways to get there (speed, paths, and vehicles), complete with referees (traffic officials) produce a "game" that allows individuals to maximize their gain, while minimizing harm to others. That "mini-max" region is the area of *optimal* productivity. The right rules make it possible -- where "right" is defined as "somewhere in the continuum of rules lying between "not enough" and "too many". Note that there other axes ("ax-eeze" how do you spell that?) as well. Including simple-complex (e.g. IRS rules). The "right" rules are one of the possible sets of rules that lie on the region that lies between "not enough" and "too much" on all relevant axes. (That sure looks like the plural of "ax" to me. What's the plural of "axis"?) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 12:44:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0B35356FFD; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8016D56FF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17037 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:00:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GK0mW27217 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE40FF0.8EBF0CA3@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:00:48 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes References: <4.2.2.20020516082124.00de2330@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Dead on. Comments below. Jack Park wrote: > This post seems like a great way to think about elements and attributes. > Here's an example of using attributes for data: > > Here's the same example using elements > > Joe > 33 > > > >From: "Simon St.Laurent" > >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > > ... > >The problem with using attributes for data is that there is no direct > >way to associate metadata with attribute content. There is a very easy > >direct way to associate metadata with element content - it's called > >attributes.... > > > >....it seems like many of the PSVI-representation difficulties > >could be relieved by a best practice of using elements for the > >information contained in a document and using attributes exclusively to > >provide additional information about the element. > > > >Separating markup from content - and putting attributes squarely in the > >markup side - seems like one means of at least alleviating the headache. To paraphrase his pithy summary: "Use elements for the information *contained* in a document and use attributes exclusively to provide additional information *about* those elements." This is basically the recommendation I put forward in Sun's XML tutorial, which has unfortunately become very difficult to find online. The truly persevering, howver, if they have fortified themselves with a big lunch, will have managed it to track it down to here http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/ea2/tutorial/doc/IntroXML4.html#65003 The relevant part of that discussion, under "Container vs. Contents" is this: "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to think of an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate each container's contents from its characteristics." It's been there for a couple of years now. (It's nice to be ahead of the curve once in a while.) :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 13:40:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4866A56FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0608256FF3 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([12.234.6.28]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020516205612.NRFP18801.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@[192.168.1.100]>; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:56:12 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:55:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes From: Sandy Klausner To: , Paul Prueitt Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3CE40FF0.8EBF0CA3@sun.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3104402144_8775730_MIME_Part" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3104402144_8775730_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to think of > an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the > container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as > elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue > or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as > attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate > each container's contents from its characteristics." Try this concept ... An element is declared as a schema container and its value is invariant from one document instance to another during execution. Whereas, an element's structure is composed of attributes that have variant value. Sandy > From: Eric Armstrong > Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:00:48 -0700 > To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes > Resent-From: > Resent-To: s.klausner@attbi.com > Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 102 15:59:34 EDT > > Dead on. Comments below. > > Jack Park wrote: > >> This post seems like a great way to think about elements and attributes. >> Here's an example of using attributes for data: >> >> Here's the same example using elements >> >> Joe >> 33 >> >> >>> From: "Simon St.Laurent" >>> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org >>> ... >>> The problem with using attributes for data is that there is no direct >>> way to associate metadata with attribute content. There is a very easy >>> direct way to associate metadata with element content - it's called >>> attributes.... >>> >>> ....it seems like many of the PSVI-representation difficulties >>> could be relieved by a best practice of using elements for the >>> information contained in a document and using attributes exclusively to >>> provide additional information about the element. >>> >>> Separating markup from content - and putting attributes squarely in the >>> markup side - seems like one means of at least alleviating the headache. > > To paraphrase his pithy summary: > > "Use elements for the information *contained* in a document > and use attributes exclusively to provide additional information > *about* those elements." > > This is basically the recommendation I put forward in Sun's XML > tutorial, which has unfortunately become very difficult to find > online. The truly persevering, howver, if they have fortified themselves > with a big lunch, will have managed it to track it down to here > http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/ea2/tutorial/doc/IntroXML4.html#65003 > > The relevant part of that discussion, under "Container vs. Contents" is > this: > "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to think of > an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the > container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as > elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue > or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as > attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate > each container's contents from its characteristics." > > It's been there for a couple of years now. > (It's nice to be ahead of the curve once in a while.) > :_) > > > --MS_Mac_OE_3104402144_8775730_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes</TI= TLE> </HEAD> <BODY> > "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to thin= k of<BR> > an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the<B= R> > container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as<BR> > elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue<BR= > > or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as<BR> > attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate<BR> > each container's contents from its characteristics."<BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080">Try this concept ...<BR> An element is declared as a schema container and its value is <U>invariant<= /U> from one document instance to another during execution. Whereas, an elem= ent's structure is composed of attributes that have <U>variant</U> value. <B= R> Sandy<BR> </FONT><BR> > From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com><BR> > Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org<BR> > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:00:48 -0700<BR> > To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org<BR> > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attribu= tes<BR> > Resent-From: <klausner@cubicon.com><BR> > Resent-To: s.klausner@attbi.com<BR> > Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 102 15:59:34 EDT<BR> > <BR> > Dead on. Comments below.<BR> > <BR> > Jack Park wrote:<BR> > <BR> >> This post seems like a great way to think about elements and attri= butes.<BR> >> Here's an example of using attributes for data:<BR> >> <someTag name=3D"Joe" age=3D"33" /><BR> >> Here's the same example using elements<BR> >> <someTag><BR> >> <name>Joe</name><BR> >> <age>33</age><BR> >> </someTag><BR> >> <BR> >>> From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com&g= t;<BR> >>> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org<BR> >>> ...<BR> >>> The problem with using attributes for data is that there is no= direct<BR> >>> way to associate metadata with attribute content.  There = is a very easy<BR> >>> direct way to associate metadata with element content - it's c= alled<BR> >>> attributes....<BR> >>> <BR> >>> ....it seems like many of the PSVI-representation difficulties= <BR> >>> could be relieved by a best practice of using elements for the= <BR> >>> information contained in a document and using attributes exclu= sively to<BR> >>> provide additional information about the element.<BR> >>> <BR> >>> Separating markup from content - and putting attributes square= ly in the<BR> >>> markup side - seems like one means of at least alleviating the= headache.<BR> > <BR> > To paraphrase his pithy summary:<BR> > <BR> > "Use elements for the information *contained* in a document<BR> > and use attributes exclusively to provide additional information<BR> > *about* those elements."<BR> > <BR> > This is basically the recommendation I put forward in Sun's XML<BR> > tutorial, which has unfortunately become very difficult to find<BR> > online. The truly persevering, howver, if they have fortified themselv= es<BR> > with a big lunch, will have managed it to track it down to here<BR> > http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/ea2/tutorial/doc/IntroXML4.html#6= 5003<BR> > <BR> > The relevant part of that discussion, under "Container vs. Conten= ts" is<BR> > this:<BR> > "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to thin= k of<BR> > an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the<B= R> > container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as<BR> > elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue<BR= > > or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as<BR> > attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate<BR> > each container's contents from its characteristics."<BR> > <BR> > It's been there for a couple of years now.<BR> > (It's nice to be ahead of the curve once in a while.)<BR> > :_)<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > <BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3104402144_8775730_MIME_Part-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 13:42:23 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D41F956FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13304.mail.yahoo.com (web13304.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.40]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B2D656FF2 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [212.202.187.241] by web13304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:58:37 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont <mdupont777@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE3D070.5AE022B0@kurtz-fernhout.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul, please let me ask this to all of you. If the OHS will not be able to at first contribute code. You and Eric both have a profound command of the english language. My command is of C/C++/SQL and Perl. Would you provide instead of software, as a group a SPECIFICATION that can be implemented as a GPLed program by someone like me? A modular design that allows for a core of GPLed code that protects the investment, and is easily modified. <SNIP> > Unfortunately, this "permission to use" liability > indemnification issue > especially as regards software patents has tied my > own hands in terms of > contributing OHS code under the GPL or any other > free license, which <SNIP> This will not be a problem if you just present a design that can be implemented. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 13:43:53 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8119A56FF5; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1211456FF4 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28208 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:00:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GL01W09986 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE41DD1.A214FDFB@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:00:01 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] PSVI (Post Schema Validation Infoset) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I saw this acroynm in a post recently, and just found out what it stands for in another message today. What the heck is it, anyway? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 14:05:23 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E00D056FF8; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56A4256FF5 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29448 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GLLUW14543 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE422DA.7E3422CE@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:21:30 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] Penance for misspent attributes References: <B9096ADF.93C6%klausner@coretalk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sandy Klausner wrote: > > "Another way of thinking about elements and attributes is to think > of > > an element as a container. To reason by analogy, the contents of the > > > container (water or milk) correspond to XML data modeled as > > elements. On the other hand, characteristics of the container (blue > > or white, pitcher or can) correspond to XML data modeled as > > attributes. Good XML style will, in some consistent way, separate > > each container's contents from its characteristics." > > Try this concept ... > An element is declared as a schema container and its value is > invariant from one document instance to another during execution. > Whereas, an element's structure is composed of attributes that have > variant value. > Sandy I think the notion of variance and invariance is an important one to observe, in this respect, but I don't follow your description of it. Using my analogy, the pitcher's contents may vary, while the pitcher's color is an invariant. So an element is used for changable content in the container, while an attribute is used for an invariant aspect of the container. Using an IBIS-kind of example, we might have <node type="question" category="performance"> <content>How do we get enough speed</content> <node type="alternative" category="hardware"> <content>We use a bigger computer</content> </node> </node> Or something to that effect. The interesting observation here is that if the meta data for a node is held invariant, then the content of a node is restricted -- only changes that preserve the node's semantics are allowed (or at least considered "good form"). To make that concrete, here is another IBIS example: <node type="argument" category="pro"> <content>I lik this idea</content> </node> Fixing the typo from "lik" to "like" would maintain the node's semantics (a pro argument), so that change could reuse the node. But changing the text to "I *don't* like this idea" would change the node's semantics. If the node's meta data is held invariant, than doing that edit would result in a "pro" node that contained a "con" argument. Not good! For the meta data to reflect the contents, a new node would have to be created. But that is a way cool thing, because it solves a problem we were discussing a few weeks ago, of how to decide when a link should go to the latest version of a node, and how to know when a change conceptually represents a "fork", such that the link should continue to go to the old node. The answer lies in the meta data. We can specify as a heuristic, in fact, that the set of possible meta data values values is sufficient if and only if any modification which changes the semantic content of the node produces a conflict with the meta data on that node. (Whether we can automatically detect such conflicts is another matter. It would be nice, but not necessary for the value of the heuristic.) However, when you wrote "an element's structure is composed of attributes that have variant value", I'm not sure what you mean. In my view, attributes would be invariant -- and we derive a lot of benefit from holding them invariant. I'm not sure if you simply used the word unintentionally here, or if your original proposal is something different from what I understood! From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 14:14:10 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D8A1856FF3; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79A1B56FF2 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08793 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:30:14 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GLUEW16458 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE424E6.3316A58D@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:30:14 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <20020516145934.74891.qmail@web13305.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > <many kind words> Thank you, sincerely, for your efforts and your inclinations in this matter. I dream of utopia. Anything and everything is on the table that will get us there. My understanding is dwarfed by my ignornance so I, too, frequently need enlightening. Your understanding of GPL will valuable, especially to the extent that you can help us draw the connections that shows how it will help us get to where we need to go. :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 14:22:32 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5E59756FFC; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E171656FFA for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1212-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.196]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB54A2310E for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:40:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:40:49 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com> Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > > Paul, > please let me ask this to all of you. > If the OHS will not be able to at first contribute > code. > You and Eric both have a profound command of the > english language. > > My command is of C/C++/SQL and Perl. > > Would you provide instead of software, as a group > a SPECIFICATION that can be implemented as a GPLed > program by someone like me? A modular design that > allows for a core of GPLed code that protects the > investment, and is easily modified. Here is a starting point: http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/ALLIANCE/980.html Various discussions here have taken some of the ideas in it further, but that document is probably a good place to start. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 14:41:08 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1CC6A56FFE; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5F3756FFD for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18782 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GLvFW21240 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:57:16 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org That is one great document. It doesn't cover issues of version control and a couple of other things, but it is one heck of a great start. My own take on the requirements are captured here: http://www.treelight.com/software/collaboration/index.html I'd start with the Requirements for Collaborative Design/Discussion System (Winter-Spring 2000). I believe Eugene worked up a later summary that took some of its better features and combined with a lot of the material that came up in our email discussions. Lee and Henry may have put something together, as well. (Unfortunately, I am horrible at keeping track of other people's documents.) Paul Fernhout wrote: > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > > > Paul, > > please let me ask this to all of you. > > If the OHS will not be able to at first contribute > > code. > > You and Eric both have a profound command of the > > english language. > > > > My command is of C/C++/SQL and Perl. > > > > Would you provide instead of software, as a group > > a SPECIFICATION that can be implemented as a GPLed > > program by someone like me? A modular design that > > allows for a core of GPLed code that protects the > > investment, and is easily modified. > > Here is a starting point: > http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/ALLIANCE/980.html > > Various discussions here have taken some of the ideas in it further, but > that document is probably a good place to start. > > -Paul Fernhout > Kurtz-Fernhout Software > ========================================================= > Developers of custom software and educational simulations > Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator > http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 15:55:48 2002 Return-Path: <owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0158B56FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from post2.inre.asu.edu (post2.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ED0656FF2 for <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion.post2.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) id <0GW8004018FV7A@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:55 -0700 (MST) Received: from mainex1.asu.edu (mainex1.asu.edu [129.219.10.200]) by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) with ESMTP id <0GW80040Z8FU5E@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:54 -0700 (MST) Received: by mainex1.asu.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <KMS3SVTY>; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:55 -0700 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:49 -0700 From: Michael Crusoe <crusoe@asu.edu> Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: "'ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org'" <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org> Message-id: <B6426E926476D411B8E800B0D03D5C1A0DD03B47@mainex2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_aANd3NSZFGpEi68nzG8Fng)" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_aANd3NSZFGpEi68nzG8Fng) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" My thoughts on the matter at hand (only because I don't see them represented elsewhere). Throughout the Unrev-II colloquium and ensuing collaboration it was my understanding that development would be two-fold. The first part would be an OHS/DKR client, written by members of BA/BI and open-sourced (I prefer the GPL). The second part would be the communications specification for exchanging data between OHS/DKR clients, linking metadata and so forth. These specifications, which would most likely use other existing standards (XML, TCP/IP, etc..), would only be formulated when the client OHS/DKR of the first part reached a 1.0 level of stability. These specifications would then be released to the public domain through standards organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage interoperability and third party development of clients. I see third party use of any software or standards developed by BA/BI as essential to it's survival. This method would allow us to have our test bed to play with (in the form of our internally produced software) that would be free and open for all to use, and a slower moving standard for interoperability with other free, commercial or non-profit implementations. Personally I see the OHS/DKR model, combined with technologies such as ReiserFS 4.0, overthrowing the desktop metaphor and radically changing the day-to-day computing environment. Realistically this is a long way off, after we have developed a standard, and much after we have developed a client. Remember, we can dual-license our software with the GPL to keep the code free and another license to keep the ideas open. As for our initial client software, I would like to see it built upon the technologies of the Mozilla project. But that's another issue. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, and I'm anxious to start working. -- Michael Crusoe Student at large --Boundary_(ID_aANd3NSZFGpEi68nzG8Fng) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2655.35"> <TITLE>RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing

My thoughts on the matter at hand (only because I = don't see them represented elsewhere).

Throughout the Unrev-II colloquium and ensuing = collaboration it was my understanding that development would be = two-fold. The first part would be an OHS/DKR client, written by members = of BA/BI and open-sourced (I prefer the GPL). The second part would be = the communications specification for exchanging data between OHS/DKR = clients, linking metadata and so forth. These specifications, which = would most likely use other existing standards (XML, TCP/IP, etc..), = would only be formulated when the client OHS/DKR of the first part = reached a 1.0 level of stability. These specifications would then be = released to the public domain through standards organizations such as = the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage interoperability and = third party development of clients. I see third party use of any = software or standards developed by BA/BI as essential to it's = survival.

This method would allow us to have our test bed to = play with (in the form of our internally produced software) that would = be free and open for all to use, and a slower moving standard for = interoperability with other free, commercial or non-profit = implementations.

Personally I see the OHS/DKR model, combined with = technologies such as ReiserFS 4.0, overthrowing the desktop metaphor = and radically changing the day-to-day computing environment. = Realistically this is a long way off, after we have developed a = standard, and much after we have developed a client.

Remember, we can dual-license our software with the = GPL to keep the code free and another license to keep the ideas = open.

As for our initial client software, I would like to = see it built upon the technologies of the Mozilla project. But that's = another issue.

We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, and I'm = anxious to start working.

--
Michael Crusoe
Student at large

= --Boundary_(ID_aANd3NSZFGpEi68nzG8Fng)-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:05:17 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A03B756FF8; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A354C56FF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04649 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GNLOW08145 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE43EF4.95DB4C86@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:21:24 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Michael Crusoe wrote: > <...an excellent summary of the intended and announced vision...> Which brings me back to my soapbox, which unfortunately finds me on the "morally wrong" side of the open source argument, but which I am convinced is pragmatically correct. To wit: A modicum of progress has been made toward the vision you so eloquently summarized, but nowhere near as much as is necessary or desirable (unless some development has been going of which I am abjectly ignorant). In my own particular case, my ability to do any sustained development in this arena has been hampered by the need to make a living, which consumes a majority of my time. (With the remainder being taken up by various other activities and projects I'm engaged in.) I did hack up a bit of code, as referenced in my recent message. Lee, bless his hacking heart, had the time to examine my efforts, understand its deficiencies, and improve on it. Eugene and Jack have both produced valuable, useful software -- but I've had little time to devote to understanding or improving on either Lee's efforts or theirs. I guess I'm not a very good argument for open source software development. I'm good at elucidating requirements, though. Hence my frequent posts to this forum. Fortunately, there are others who seem to somehow find the time for open source work. I hope the licensing issues can be resolved so they can jump into the fray. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:07:11 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7957556FF8; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13305.mail.yahoo.com (web13305.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.41]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1475356FF5 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020516232323.86463.qmail@web13305.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.229.177] by web13305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:23:23 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I will read all this documents, but as a small pocket guide, like a tourist map would be great, can someone please provide an overview of high level architecture and class design? What are the first class objects? Links, Documents, Servers, Client, Users? Or associations, tuples, tables? What about threads, topics, references? What is the smallest working system, what about the bootstrap? What is the core of the system, the minimal set of operations to support a bootstrap? You know I have GB and GBs of nodes extracted via the compiler. Each on contains an atom of information. The names are links to things outside, the pointers to things inside the system. Can we use something like the introspectors postgres node database and store even more node types? are we talking about a complex graph attribution system here? Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:11:42 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id EEF2456FF7; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79D0056FF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020516232755.77672.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.229.177] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:27:55 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:27:55 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Remember, we can dual-license our software with the > GPL to keep the code > free and another license to keep the ideas open. > > As for our initial client software, I would like to > see it built upon the > technologies of the Mozilla project. But that's > another issue. Have you taken a look at conzilla, http://www.conzilla.org/ it is GPLed and Mozilla. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:26:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8F20E56FF3; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4640756FF2 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020516234235.79992.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.229.177] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:35 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE43EF4.95DB4C86@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > > this forum. Fortunately, there are others who seem > to somehow find the > time for open source work. I hope the licensing > issues can be resolved > so > they can jump into the fray. I like the idea of the TAO, and the ZEN, the direct experience of the thing, the inabilty to express in words, the deepness of the interaction between the mind and the subject of the thought. expressed in the motto of the Dynamo Open Air Festival "Those who know cannot explain, those who dont cannot understand" I am involved in the DotGNU pnet compiler development, and am very impressed with Rhys Weatherby, he just hack and hacks away. Not too many emails, ideas, just code, code and more code. I like the idea of literate programming, your design is your doc, your doc is your diagram, your diagram is your code. Code is a message to a compiler, but the compiler is written by a person, so it is a message to the compiler writer as to how to translate and deal with your idea. Problem is that you have so many peoples ideas in so many different systems and you have to talk in so many file formats to write a program. Even if you have each of these as a separate files, a common linking mechanism, and a common browser would allow you to cross reference your different parts of your program togethers. That is what I hope to gain from working on the OHS, a human framework for intergrating the human side of the introspector. Here is an example session : Click on the name and find functions, oh, what are the parts of the name, what do they mean, concept browse them, ahhhh.. thats what a thunk is, .... How is this data type used... I see... all these users? Graph that in a new window .. Wow... Now who uses them, add a new level to that graph... All called by this one function! Who wrote it? Home page? Email? And what about messages related to this function? CVS logs on this line for code? I see only three authors ever changed it. Let me send them a mail. kind of a stream of consiousness type idea, you know? mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:26:35 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D04B556FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from post2.inre.asu.edu (post2.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91F7D56FF3 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion.post2.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) id <0GW800B019V3OP@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:39 -0700 (MST) Received: from mainex1.asu.edu (mainex1.asu.edu [129.219.10.200]) by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) with ESMTP id <0GW800B239V3LG@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:39 -0700 (MST) Received: by mainex1.asu.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:40 -0700 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:36 -0700 From: Michael Crusoe Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: "'ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_h1+bWvb69IPEvbIHtHXa6A)" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_h1+bWvb69IPEvbIHtHXa6A) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > From: James Michael DuPont [mailto:mdupont777@yahoo.com] > Have you taken a look at conzilla, > http://www.conzilla.org/ > it is GPLed and Mozilla. No, thanks for the link! Have you seen Stalemate? http://stalemate.mozdev.org/ "The STALEMATE Project at mozdev is intended to mesh with the development under the same name at GNU of a knowledge-based system design environment. The object is to Web-enable a bare-bones knowledge-management tool by utilizing Mozilla's native user- and system-interfacing facilities. In addition Mozilla-based interfacing is used to integrate the target applications generated at the KDD Lab at SourceForge. " http://www.stalemate.nl/ http://www.stalemate.nl/kdd-lab/ "2002/01/01 The project enters its pre-development phase. " Don't know if it's still being worked on. The .nl site is hard to navigate. -- Michael --Boundary_(ID_h1+bWvb69IPEvbIHtHXa6A) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing

> From: James Michael DuPont [mailto:mdupont777@yahoo.com] =

> Have you taken a look at conzilla,
> http://www.conzilla.org/
> it is GPLed and Mozilla.

No, thanks for the link! Have you seen = Stalemate?

http://stalemate.mozdev.org/

"The STALEMATE Project at mozdev is intended to = mesh with the development under the same name at GNU of a = knowledge-based system design environment. The object is to Web-enable = a bare-bones knowledge-management tool by utilizing Mozilla's native = user- and system-interfacing facilities. In addition Mozilla-based = interfacing is used to integrate the target applications generated at = the KDD Lab at SourceForge. "

http://www.stalemate.nl/
http://www.stalemate.nl/kdd-lab/

"2002/01/01    The project enters = its pre-development phase. "

Don't know if it's still being worked on. The .nl = site is hard to navigate.

--
Michael

= --Boundary_(ID_h1+bWvb69IPEvbIHtHXa6A)-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:37:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2200C56FF7; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2946356FF4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1274-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.6.4]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B774523948 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:54:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE446FA.834F5BAD@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:55:38 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020516181345.53F2856FF6@bi0.bootstrap.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Doug- Thanks for chiming in on licensing. GPL works for me. I feel that the GPL protects all parties involved for a project like an OHS more than it weakens potential commercial use. We gave the other approach (permission to use, grant seeking, etc.) two years to get us an OHS and it hasn't panned out so far. Why not try the GPL approach for a little while (in addition to other things people might want to do) and see what happens? Looks like, for example, James Michael DuPont is raring to go to work on an OHS under the GPL. I have some stuff that could jumpstart such a GPL'd OHS effort as well. Another reason I think the GPL is a good approach to try (for building an OHS) is I feel the GPL implicitly defines a constitution for a chaordic software development organization. http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0204/msg00212.html Who knows who or what else will turn up when unleashing such a chaordic process on the OHS mission? It is quite possible people or organizations who want to make money off the OHS effort can do so working with a GPL'd version, just perhaps differently than they might otherwise. They could: * write books on a GPL'd OHS, * install a GPL'd OHS for clients, * do specialized editing of a GPL'd OHS's content, * maintain a GPL'd OHS in-house in an organization, * be the in-house GPL'd OHS content librarian, * build proprietary add-ons for a GPL'd OHS, * do customization of a GPL'd OHS, * worry about security of a GPL'd OHS, * train users on a GPL'd OHS, * provide technical help desk support of a GPL'd OHS, * build a GPL'd OHS into hardware, * port a GPL'd OHS to new platforms on request, * use a GPL'd OHS to analyze stocks or do other secondary paying activities, * sell warranties for continued operation of a GPL'd OHS, * certify certain builds of a GPL'd OHS as stable, * test modified versions of a GPL'd OHS, * give talks on a GPL'd OHS, * write news articles about a GPL'd OHS, * teach college courses on a GPL'd OHS, * convert data from proprietary formats into open GPL'd OHS formats, * us knowledge of a GPL'd OHS to be a more attractive employment candidate, * charge people for shipping modified versions of a GPL'd OHS (as long as they also provided all the source under the GPL at the time of sale) * advise local, state, and federal governments and the UN on GPL'd OHS deployment, * finally, to paraphrase the late Douglas Adams in "the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy", and to all the people on these lists who have been involved with UnRevII and the OHS for a long time: :-) > "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it > occurs to me that running a program like [a GPL'd OHS :-)] is > bound to create an enormous amount of popular > publicity. ... Everyone's going to have their own > theories and who better to capitalize on that media > market than you yourselves? So long as you can > keep disagreeing with each other violently enough > and maligning each other in the popular press, and > so long as you have clever agents, you can keep > yourselves on the gravy train for life. How does > that sound?" One thing I can say is, in my opinion, at this juncture, the GPL path is a more sure way to create a good OHS that builds "Collective IQ" than any other license I know of. There is already a lot of other GPL'd code out there that could potentially be integrated into the OHS effort, down to building GCC or Emacs or GNU/Linux into a GPL'd OHS framework if such proved worth doing. We can also draw from a whole range of GPL compatible licensed software like Python. There are many GPL-using developers who, if seeing a GPL'd OHS as a tool for freedom and global problem solving, might just lend a hand in bootstrapping it. While I could try to predict how other licensing types (free or proprietary) might effect the evolution of an OHS and the "natural language of the future", maybe we should just try 'em all and see. I won't say there won't be a lot of static from people who prefer other licenses if you (Doug) personally come out supporting a GPL'd OHS version (either whole-heartedly or just to an extent), but why not let anyone who feels strongly do their own OHS system under a different license, and let the approaches compete and see which produces the better OHS. If individuals flock to an approach like the GPL or put more work into a GPL'd version because they like the license, then that is a way of voting on their desired future. Ideally, all OHS projects, even if under different licenses, will "steal" ideas from each other in a good and legal way. If volunteers are doing the work, they can choose the tools and licenses they are comfortable with. If people have different preferences, they'll make their own version if they feel strongly enough. It may seem wastefully redundant to an engineering mindset to have all these people bumbling about and seemingly doing their own thing, but with enough open source and free software developer termites milling around, at least one nice OHS mound might get built out of seeming chaos. http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion/1668.html When some OHS developer termite makes something exciting, other OHS developer termites will likely mill around the new artifact and pehaps build on it. And remember, the bumbling will be guided in part by the OHS spec: http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/ALLIANCE/980.html as well as discussions such as from this list archived on the Bootstrap site and the seed of the UnrevII colloquium. That wealth of digital wood will give developer termites much to consume and create with, such as Chris Dent and Kathryn La Barre have done already: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu./~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~cjdent/unrev/index.cgi I still personally feel after writing all this that GPL is the way to go at this point because it embodies a certain ethic I am growing to like; one can probably tell I just read Richard Stallman's biography "Free as in Freedom": http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ However, I still write the above on allowing many variously licensed OHS flowers to bloom to be inclusive and because I always might be wrong, and I don't want to rule out other approaches if people have the steam to make them happen. Still, note that if Chris and Kathryn had built on GPL'd OHS work, they could just go back to their university (which apparently has also left their work hanging in legal limbo) and say the results just had to be released under the GPL. It will take a very greedy university to tell faculty, staff, and students they can't build on a GPL'd codebase, and such a university might in the end be shamed into allowing students to work on a GPL'd OHS if nothing else works. Thanks for the comments and update on what's going on behind the scenes on unraveling "permission to use" indemnification issues as a stumbling block to progress. I feel surprising and fun things may happen once that roadblock is removed whatever the licensing paths people here take for their work. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com Doug Engelbart - Bootstrap Institute wrote: > > It is past time for me to speak up about "Licensing" and IP in general. Here > are what seem to me to be relevant thoughts; if they do not provide adequate > answers, please quietly and instructively cue me in about what's needed for > you. > > My general attitude is that emergent capabilities of new and forthcoming > technologies, among other impacts upon our world, will enable us humans to > extend our ability to manipulate and portray symbols in remarkably novel ways. > Way beyond visual print symbols -- e.g. to include special "signal-codes" > presented to our eyes, ears, noses, taste buds, touch, movement, temperature, > skin-hair tugs, ... etc. Here, very complex combinations and sequencing offer > us new "symbols" and new "symbol structures" providing a huge increase beyond > current languages in meaningful communications and knowledge. > > For this "IP discussion," it is enough for me here to characterize the > continued evolution of the augmentation of our Collective IQ as relating > closely to the evolution of "natural languages." E.g., the form of English > which we are using in this forum. > > And, dipping lightly into the object-oriented vernacular, the software for > manipulating and portraying the symbol structures in our natural language need > to be as free and open in the evolution and use of their objects and methods as > are the vocabulary terms and syntactic rules of a natural language. > > Also to be considered are the huge number of evolutionary paths ahead of us, > and the challenge of facilitating the evolutionary processes to find us the > best paths and for us to become collectively smart enough in the ridiculously > short time of say the next decade or so to cope with all the other disruptive, > crippling threats caused by the associated, over-rapid, huge-scale, pervasive > changes. > > So, to my limited experience, it seems that GPL licensing would be best for > objects and methods representing the verbs, nouns, modifiers, etc. of the > Natural Language of our Augmented Future. > > The roads, bridges, traffic laws, intersection rules and controls, parking > facilities, etc. don't seem to be controlled by private enterprise and > free-market rules. > > So, I ask, how would each of the current licensing types encourage, curtail, > stifle, or etc. the evolution of an OHS and the "natural language of the > future?" > > ***** > > And about the constraints on current interchanges: I'm definitely for removing > them, and we're getting lawyer help in untangling the holdover, initial > arrangements made with Stanford for the mutual BI-Stanford activities during > the 10-week Colloqium. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 16:42:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 88CF856FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0373556FF7 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19851 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4GNwqW15615 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE447BD.AEADA459@sun.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:58:53 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020516234235.79992.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > Here is an example session : > > Click on the name and find functions, oh, what are the > parts of the name, what do they mean, concept browse > them, ahhhh.. thats what a thunk is, .... How is this > data type used... I see... all these users? > Graph that in a new window .. > Wow... > Now who uses them, add a new level to that graph... > All called by this one function! > Who wrote it? Home page? Email? And what about > messages related to this function? CVS logs on this > line for code? I see only three authors ever changed > it. Let me send them a mail. > Yeah! What you said. :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 22:13:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 94A0B56FF3; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4408C56FF2 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attglobal.net ([63.206.92.173]) by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with ESMTP id <0GW8005CFG9R2Z@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 19:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:07:01 -0700 From: Rod Welch Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Collaboration Improvemenet Ideas To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Recent comments on license issues demonstrated brilliant talent by many contributors. Eric's letter today (shown below) referencing his excellent Treelight web site focuses on adding value to knowledge work, and seems to propose a technology project to improve collaboration. I believe this is an error. The first order of business should be intelligence based on an architecture of human thought. Earlier Paul worried that the license issue has prevented code from being contributed for the OHS/DKR. While I have admired Paul's analysis on many issues, this particular point is not clear in the record. A simple test is work product. Whether someone submits code or not is irrelevant if there is no work product that demonstrates added value to existing capabilities. An example is Doug's purple numbers system demonstrated in a letter on 001025 that showed added value, so people might ask to have that code, and at that point licensing becomes an important concern. Similarly, Eric, Paul, Jack, Lee, Eugene and others have made helpful contributions, and so licensing is critical, based on a demonstration of added value, as Doug did on 001025. For example, Eugene made improvements in purple numbers and Jack planned to produce an engine to organize the record. Eric planned to create something on version control and categories. Show work product that shows added value to generate demand for the code; then address licensing. This still leaves open the question of whether meaningful progress has occurred on producing an OHS/DKR, or is deterred pending resolution of license matters? OHS/DKR capability is so valuable, as explained in Eric's letter on 000120 citing Doug's vision presented in the Colloquium at Stanford, and on Eric's web site, per his letter below, for solving world problems, that it seems implausible for people to hold back creating useful code simply because of worry about licensing. In other words the needs Eric related on 000120 and later on 011003 are so huge and painfully frustrating that no one would stand by and endure suffering if they knew how to fix the problem. In that case, work product would demonstrate added value. Since there is no work product, this indicates that people don't know what to do. Eric's letter on 000503 made this very point. Earlier on 000405 Paul said close to the same thing. Nothing in the record shows that lack of understanding the design of KM has been repaired. Consideration might therefore be given to reviewing Eric's letter on 000423 talking about augmenting intelligence, because experience indicates intelligence helps collaboration. This requires re-thinking the meaning of "knowledge" based on Eric's letter on 000212 by applying the rigor invested the past week or so re-thinking license ideas. There is plenty of brain power in the group, but it needs to focus on things that make progress, rather than whatever pops into the mind at the moment, as Grant noted on 001012. In this respect I differ slightly with Paul on the Termite production method used at Microsoft, Boeing and with the OHS/DKR effort the past few years. A million bright stars light up the heavens but do not produce enough energy to light a fire; while a simple magnifying glass focuses light in sufficient measure for ignition. The missing ingredients then are focus of management and focus of design on cognitive science, noted by Drucker in his article published in October of 1999. Recall that Mary Keeler discussed this somewhat in remarks at SRI on 000518 citing work by Peirce on semiotics. Once you establish an architecture of human thought that can be addressed with computer programming skills, you can build a technology that enables a dynamic knowledge repository to solve world problems. When people are able to work "intelligently," then there is opportunity to improve collaboration, as called out in Eric's web site. So long as knowledge and intelligence are ignored, people will remain in the dark using information technology which means continued dominance by Microsoft that has been a sore point in the group. The only way to transcend Microsoft is to leave them the monopoly for IT that is document centric, and move the market to KM by advancing alphabet technology beyond the model of documents in the same way that automobiles outflanked covered wagons. It is an old story that may not be played out in our lifetimes, but at least we have the opportunity to witness the majesty of a powerful new wave forming on the horizon, if only we would lift our eyes to see, and then perhaps nudge things along as best we can. Once a better foundation for knowledge work is in place by strengthening alphabet technology, then folks are positioned to accomplish Doug's goals for improving improvement using open source modalities. First, however, we need a better way to leverage intelligence, as explained in NWO.... http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/03/02/03/0309.HTM#42HC This requires focusing brilliant talent for analysis, demonstrated on the license issue, on "knowledge," which is painful in the beginning as Eric noted on 000503, but very soon rewarding, satisfying and fun to work intelligently. It only takes a little focus. Rod **************** Eric Armstrong wrote: > > That is one great document. It doesn't cover issues of > version control and a couple of other things, but it is one > heck of a great start. > > My own take on the requirements are captured here: > http://www.treelight.com/software/collaboration/index.html > > I'd start with the Requirements for Collaborative Design/Discussion > System (Winter-Spring 2000). > > I believe Eugene worked up a later summary that took some > of its better features and combined with a lot of the material > that came up in our email discussions. Lee and Henry may > have put something together, as well. (Unfortunately, I am > horrible at keeping track of other people's documents.) > > Paul Fernhout wrote: > > > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > > > > > Paul, > > > please let me ask this to all of you. > > > If the OHS will not be able to at first contribute > > > code. > > > You and Eric both have a profound command of the > > > english language. > > > > > > My command is of C/C++/SQL and Perl. > > > > > > Would you provide instead of software, as a group > > > a SPECIFICATION that can be implemented as a GPLed > > > program by someone like me? A modular design that > > > allows for a core of GPLed code that protects the > > > investment, and is easily modified. > > > > Here is a starting point: > > http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/ALLIANCE/980.html > > > > Various discussions here have taken some of the ideas in it further, but > > that document is probably a good place to start. > > > > -Paul Fernhout > > Kurtz-Fernhout Software > > ========================================================= > > Developers of custom software and educational simulations > > Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator > > http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 16 22:33:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 72D4D56FF4; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13302.mail.yahoo.com (web13302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A1A256FF3 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020517054915.40782.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.229.177] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:49:15 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:49:15 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE446FA.834F5BAD@kurtz-fernhout.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org We have to be carefull about this one point : > * build proprietary add-ons for a GPL'd OHS, Creating derived works of a GPled program, and distributing them is a way to get your self in trouble. The GPLv2 has some difficulties with web services and linkage, also because there are problems with definition of derived works and linkage in a web server environment. The new version of the GPL will be specificially handling that, but I don't know if all the cases are covered. > the OHS effort, down > to building GCC or Emacs or GNU/Linux into a GPL'd > OHS framework if such Just look at how many WIKIs you have out there, much diversity, but also much support (editors, tools, etc) Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 04:16:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E66BD56FF3; Fri, 17 May 2002 04:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from bedarra.org (mail.bedarra.org [216.167.76.118]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AFD656FF2 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 04:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [32.106.120.176] (account cainet.kholman@bigrideau.com HELO CRANE-T23.CraneSoftwrights.com) by bedarra.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 785682 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:24:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517115331.025c6010@pop.storm.ca> X-Sender: cainet.kholman@bigrideau.com@junk (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:56:17 +0200 To: ba-ohs-talk From: "G. Ken Holman" Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] PSVI (Post Schema Validation Infoset) In-Reply-To: <3CE41DD1.A214FDFB@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 2002-05-16 20:00 -0700, Eric Armstrong wrote: >I saw this acroynm in a post recently, and just found >out what it stands for in another message today. > >What the heck is it, anyway? The set of information passed to an application from an XML document after a schema-aware processor has processed that XML document. It is an abstraction, though a few proposals are out there for serializing it into a physical entity. There isn't just one PSVI, you have to know which PSVI you are talking/thinking about. The term was introduced with the W3C XML Schema work, and that work defines *a* PSVI relative to that technology, but the term is being used more widely. Note that an application can augment a PSVI and pass that augmented set of information to another application. I hope this helps. ................... Ken -- Upcoming: 3-days XSLT/XPath and/or 2-days XSLFO: June 17-21, 2002 - : 3-days XML Information Modeling: July 31-August 2, 2002 G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/b/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995) ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT and XPath ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath ISBN 1-894049-07-1 Practical Formatting Using XSLFO XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML/OmniMark services, books(electronic, printed), articles, training(instructor-live,Internet-live,web/CD,licensed) Next public training: 2002-05-06,07,09,10,13,15,20, - 06-04,07,10,11,13,14,17,20,07-31,08-05,27,30 From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 06:33:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2FE0256FF3; Fri, 17 May 2002 06:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7204556FF2 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 06:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:48:56 +0100 Message-ID: <3CE50A1C.7090205@open.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:48:12 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OHS Talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Augmented Plain Text (APT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [rather than crossposting, I'm reposting here from the PORT list.] Jon Awbrey wrote: > >John F. Sowa wrote: > >Jon, > >Email is the least permanent, and one of the most annoying >of all formats. > >> for thirty years, a long string of people have been telling me: >> if you'll just rewrite your essay in style sheet of the week X, >> if you'll just turn those graphical scribbles into a program Y, >> if you'll just rewrite your program in language of the month Z, >> if you'll just start your next list at the beginning of the alphabet.. >> and each time i bought it -- "hopelessly naive" -- that's my number... I hopefully won't need to tell Jon to change his ways one more time. As part of the process of assisting Jon in getting his email messages into XHTML I've resurrected a years-old project designed to enable simple authoring of XHTML from plain text sources, called Augmented Plain Text (APT). I'll be including APT support in Ceryle, which will allow people to use plain text plus a few APT keywords to autogenerate XHTML that includes hierarchically-numbered headings and a table of contents. An APT keyword looks like "#HEAD" or "#LINK", nothing complicated. I'll probably trim a few from the spec rather than adding more -- trying to keep this simple. I thought about calling it Simple Augmented Plain Text but didn't like the acronym. The APT-enhanced sources can be stripped of APT keywords with a script I'll provide (maybe within Ceryle, then you won't need unix) so you can always get back to plain text. I'll likely be working up some special facilities to handle email messages, and the output will be optionally plinked as well. The preliminary APT 1.0 specification is at http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/ceryle/apt.html Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 07:16:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 54A5256FF4; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 51CB856FF3 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-744-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.3.236]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6F0242C4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:33:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CE5150D.742CD1D4@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:34:53 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Collaboration Improvemenet Ideas References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Rod- I enjoyed your post. First, I agree with you general sentiment you in particular have long made clear essentially that Knowledge Management is a verb, and it takes significant and continuing skilled effort to build and maintain a meaningful and useful record, that there is value in restatement and editing and summarizing, and these things are at the core of human thought and can't easily if ever be automated (or if they can be automated, the automations will essentially be virtual humans). I agree further that existing KM technique could be improved, and any OHS effort should discuss this, and also that existing technique (such as your POIMS represents as one illustration) could simply be used more to great benefit. The lack of adoption of such techniques is in part culture and a matter of priorities, as well as the simple hurdles any new technique faces in becomign widespread (like handwashing before surgery took a long time to become accepted). Further, that in general the application of these techniques using simple tools, like HTML and hand coding (or simple scripts) on important issues is probably of more immediate value than lots of new code (unless, in my opinion, that new code really leverages some key enabling idea, which is my hope with some of my own free software work). Consider this article that just came up in Slashdot: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/16/1647211&mode=thread&tid=134&threshold=2 > "ThinkCycle is an MIT Media Lab > project to apply SETI@Home principles to design > problems for underserved communities. Only, intead of donating > spare cpu cycles, you donate spare 'think cycles.' Their aim is to > build a community of designers, inventors and innovators that > want to collaborate on developing novel solutions to some what > intractable problems like clean water access , cholera treatment > and appropriate shelters. Their aim is to encourage an "open > source" ethos for tough design and technology challenges." There is a long discussion there about "ThinkCycle" and effort to get people to collaborate on solving world problems. While most applaud the effort, a lot of negative things are said about the approach, essentially that at some point one has to translate thoughts into action. To put it in the words on a card I saw Marty Johnson of Isles, Inc. have on his monitor -- http://www.isles.org/ "You can't plow a field by turning it over in your mind". Much of the discussion in the slashdot article is relevant to consider as regards an OHS for solving world problems -- in fact, to an extent "ThinkCycle" is another OHS attempt. That said, sometimes enough thinking comes up with an innovative solution or approach that requires less effort to implement, thus reducing a sort of quantum barrier to human activity relative to available community energy, which allows a solution to tunnel through. Yet, at the end of the day, some actual work must be done, money and resources transferred, hands held, stories told, holes dug, houses built, wires run, fields plowed, and so on. When I was a kid, I received an invitation to apply at Deep Springs college, and sometimes I regret not pursuing that, since a key aspect of the curriculum is taking care of cows, where the point is, no matter how much you debate philosophy, the cows need to be milked. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0219/p13s02-lehl.html On the other hand, as mainly a bright but lazy person, my response is still generally to automate when possible, even if it takes a heck of a lot of work to automate http://www.dairybiz.com/archive/tech_30.htm since I've been fond of robotics since seeing "Silent Running" as a kid. Or alternatively, and even smarter, it is to simply choose a path that neither needs much automation or much work, like Permaculture http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/perma.html or Passive Solar. http://www.aaepassivesolar.com/low-energy.html [And it looks like Eric is pursuing some of these ideas as well with 3D forest agriculture and such.] At the very least, spending a lot of time thinking prevents one from doing harm. The first part of the Hippocratic Oath if often paraphrased as "first, do no harm" (although that exact phrasing isn't actually in the oath): http://www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.html The orginal open source version of the oath (at least as regards offspring of your teacher): > and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, > without fee or stipulation A modern version allowing more commercialism of medical knowledge says: > in the same spirit and dedication to > impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. Shows the changes in our society over thousands of years. So, open source and free software is "radical", where radical means a return to the roots. I bring this up in part because the Hippocratic Oath is to an extent a constitution for how a group of doctors works together to develop and share medical knowledge. I think software licensing choices (such as using the GPL) also implicitly define constitutions for working together. While there are many difficulties to both building and using an OHS (not the least of which is all the other related efforts out there already and concern over reinventing the wheel), licensing is one of them, because it reflects the rules of the collaboration. We need to resolve all of these issues to an extent before we have code. While it is true some code has been produced related to purple numbers or translating Augment documentation to HTML, I see those as more utilities than the fundamental core of an OHS system. So licensing for them hasn't been such a big issue because they are more "leaf nodes" as opposed to "trunk" code. I could potentially use such leaf code and replace them more easily if there was a licensing issue than I could deal with having to replace a trunk supporting all my own leaves. And frankly, to respectfully disagree, I think the indemnification aspect of permision to use is a major stumbling block. One may think I'm paranoid, but if such legal actions and related large costs weren't possible or even likely down the road, then why is that phrasing in there at all? It is precisely because such problems are possible and perhaps likely. And if one admits that there is a reason that clause is in there, then the issue becomes fairness and respect towards volunteers and their contributions. One might argue the indemnification clause is mereley in there as a deterrent to dishonesty, but again, what message does that convey to volunteers as an expectation of their behavior? [Note: I have no problem with asking contributors to positively affirm contributions are original, or authorized, or fair use, or so forth; that level of butt protection is quite OK and prudent.] There is a core group here of ten or twenty posters here, but an OHS effort, especially one rallying around a historic yet still vibrant figure like Doug, could and should have thousands. Where are they? Surely thousands have read these email archives or come across them in Google or on Slashdot. I think part of the issue is a matter of respect for the volunteer, lack of which has reduced bootstrapping. As I've said before, my wife has seen the same thing at zoos, and I at other non-profits, so this is not an isolated issue. It is just a typical common place non-profit issue related to social engineering, and mishandling volunteers has torpedoed projects many times in the past, and handling volunteers well has also made thousands of projects big successes. Obviously, you also want somewhat thick skinned volunteers too, since no organization is perfect. Respectfully, while I as an individual or a project manager completely agree with your magnifying glass focusing metaphor from an effectiveness standpoint of much conventional software development, I completely disagree with it from a free software or open source perspective. In a free software project a coordinator has essentially no control over volunteer contributions (except as far as rejecting them from a repository one has sole control over, in which case the contributor can post them elsewhere). One can at best provide interesting things to inspire people, whether ideas or code. At any minute, at any misunderstanding or disagreement, or at any unpredictable change in life circumstance, a volunteer can disappear, to be never heard from again, without even an explanation. Worse, they can get really pissed off and widely badmouth the project. [And I am sorry to the extent my criticisms come across that way; the intent is to bootstrap thigns here.] Perhaps, at best, a volunteer coordinator can occasionally develop mutually advantageous personal relationships of trust and commitment, which can help smooth over the rough edges of any relationship. Look at it this way, money is to an extent like your magnifying glass to get a bunch of minds somewhat focused on whatever problem you want to think about. Well, there is no significant money here, and even if there was in the order of billions, it would still be many orders of magnitude below the total needed to do the job of reconstructing society on a fairer, more just, and more sustainable basis. Yet, even if there were trillions of dollars available (which there actually are!), effectively in knowledge work most productivity is voluntary, because it is so hard to monitor productivity of knowledge production. For example, one great web page saying something new and important may be far more valuable than 10,000 mediocre ones, but one may not know the value of that great web page or its author until years later, and in fact that great web page may be actively dismissed and edited out [negative productivity, probably accounted for as positive editing productivity] because it does not fit in well with the other 10,000. So, I would argue the effective relationship of volunteers is essential to future success of the OHS and beyond that to humanity as a whole. Note, I said "relationship" implying volunteers relating mainly to each other (and to anyone fortunate enough to have a source of support telling the employee to work in the area for pay). I did not write "management"of volunteers implying paid people ordering volunteers what to do. Naturally, if you respect someone, you often listen to their advice, so any organization does develop its centers and hubs. It's just a complex and dynamic social process. Perhaps because I have spent more time consulting than managing, and when I have managed it has been mainly college students who could easily quit anytime, I have a style that essentially is persuasion not command. Perhaps this idea may help when thinking of "managing" volunteers, instead consider volunteers more like clients who are paying you (with their occasional attention) for your advice on what are good things to do and good ways to do them. Remember, volunteers can fire you at any time and for any reason, simply by stopping to pay you (in their attention). Fact, is, I probably wouldn't know what to do with a billion dollars a year anyway as far as focusing people on an OHS or anything else. I'd probably just rent a big building (I know one for rent next to IBM Research Hawthorne), hire bright people based on their past accomplishments and volunteer work and previous commitment to free software, bring in interesting speakers and toys, send congratulatory emails a lot, have daily teas, and mainly just let people do what they want, encouraging them to collaborate when they can, and maybe nagging people in a nice way where they have the option to ignore me. [Definitely would hire Eric!] Then I'd give everything away under free licenses and hope for the best. Ah, what a fantasy -- not the funding part, since there's plenty of money sloshing around for those who can turn the right taps, but when I start thinking about HR, salary squabbles, convincing people to move near the building, claims of unfairness in hiring practices, people fighting over credit and recognition, sexual harrasment lawsuits, bad press, etc. Probably easier to just give grants to individuals with proven track records in free software. Actually, now that I think of it, I know of such a place, and I used to walk there sometimes, the Institute for Advanced Study (as Freeman Dyson put it more or less, it is a successful place because it is just a motel for scholars): http://www.ias.edu/ However, it is very steeped in an academic culture, not a world changing or tool building one as in a free software sense. > The Institute has no formal curriculum, degree programs, schedule of courses, > laboratories, or other experimental facilities. It is committed to > exploring the most fundamental areas of knowledge, areas > where there is little expectation of immediate outcomes or > striking applications--nonetheless, the long-term impact of Institute > research has sometimes been dramatic. No contracted or directed > research is done at the Institute, and it receives no income > from tuition or fees. Resources for operations come from endowment income, > grants from private foundations and government > agencies, and gifts from corporations and individuals. > It has no formal links to other educational > institutions, but since its founding the Institute has enjoyed > close, collaborative ties with Princeton > University and other nearby institutions. Don't have a billion dollars a year, but mailing lists are cheap, and so perhaps what I can afford is a poor man's research institute -- just a mailing list as a sort of salon with interesting people collaborating on the list in their spare time. This list could become that by developing the right constitution and bootstrapping on past "permission to use". If that issue isn't resolved (although it looks from what Doug writes like the ice may finally be about to thaw), I'll just keep on doing stuff anyway, although I do acknowledge the difficulty of connecting visionaries which Doug has always gloriously accomplished (as was pointed out to me in private by a list member). Look, let me put it this way. We already have an OHS. It consists of the email archives on the web and Google. http://www.google.com/ I use it all the time, even if to just find links to my past posts. This query pulls up stuff on you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bootstrap+welch&btnG=Google+Search So, we're really just bootstrapping this into something better. So there is code, just running behind the scenes at Google! But beyond code, what we need in my opinion is still a better constitution for working together than the non-consititution of "permission to use". That isn't enough -- we also still need code, and we still need the techniques and habits of thought to do good knowledge management, and we need content. And we need to bootstrap on what we have to get to other levels, since the level we are on now (e.g. North vs. South divide) just isn't stable even if we wanted to maintain the status quo. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com Rod Welch wrote: > > Recent comments on license issues demonstrated brilliant talent by > many contributors. > > Eric's letter today (shown below) referencing his excellent Treelight > web site focuses on adding value to knowledge work, and seems to > propose a technology project to improve collaboration. I believe this > is an error. The first order of business should be intelligence based > on an architecture of human thought. > > Earlier Paul worried that the license issue has prevented code from > being contributed for the OHS/DKR. While I have admired Paul's > analysis on many issues, this particular point is not clear in the > record. > > A simple test is work product. > > Whether someone submits code or not is irrelevant if there is no work > product that demonstrates added value to existing capabilities. An > example is Doug's purple numbers system demonstrated in a letter on > 001025 that showed added value, so people might ask to have that code, > and at that point licensing becomes an important concern. Similarly, > Eric, Paul, Jack, Lee, Eugene and others have made helpful > contributions, and so licensing is critical, based on a demonstration > of added value, as Doug did on 001025. For example, Eugene made > improvements in purple numbers and Jack planned to produce an engine > to organize the record. Eric planned to create something on version > control and categories. Show work product that shows added value to > generate demand for the code; then address licensing. > > This still leaves open the question of whether meaningful progress has > occurred on producing an OHS/DKR, or is deterred pending resolution of > license matters? > > OHS/DKR capability is so valuable, as explained in Eric's letter on > 000120 citing Doug's vision presented in the Colloquium at Stanford, > and on Eric's web site, per his letter below, for solving world > problems, that it seems implausible for people to hold back creating > useful code simply because of worry about licensing. In other words > the needs Eric related on 000120 and later on 011003 are so huge and > painfully frustrating that no one would stand by and endure suffering > if they knew how to fix the problem. In that case, work product would > demonstrate added value. Since there is no work product, this > indicates that people don't know what to do. > > Eric's letter on 000503 made this very point. Earlier on 000405 Paul > said close to the same thing. Nothing in the record shows that lack > of understanding the design of KM has been repaired. > > Consideration might therefore be given to reviewing Eric's letter on > 000423 talking about augmenting intelligence, because experience > indicates intelligence helps collaboration. This requires re-thinking > the meaning of "knowledge" based on Eric's letter on 000212 by > applying the rigor invested the past week or so re-thinking license > ideas. There is plenty of brain power in the group, but it needs to > focus on things that make progress, rather than whatever pops into the > mind at the moment, as Grant noted on 001012. In this respect I > differ slightly with Paul on the Termite production method used at > Microsoft, Boeing and with the OHS/DKR effort the past few years. A > million bright stars light up the heavens but do not produce enough > energy to light a fire; while a simple magnifying glass focuses light > in sufficient measure for ignition. > > The missing ingredients then are focus of management and focus of > design on cognitive science, noted by Drucker in his article published > in October of 1999. Recall that Mary Keeler discussed this somewhat in > remarks at SRI on 000518 citing work by Peirce on semiotics. > > Once you establish an architecture of human thought that can be > addressed with computer programming skills, you can build a technology > that enables a dynamic knowledge repository to solve world problems. > When people are able to work "intelligently," then there is > opportunity to improve collaboration, as called out in Eric's web > site. So long as knowledge and intelligence are ignored, people will > remain in the dark using information technology which means continued > dominance by Microsoft that has been a sore point in the group. The > only way to transcend Microsoft is to leave them the monopoly for IT > that is document centric, and move the market to KM by advancing > alphabet technology beyond the model of documents in the same way that > automobiles outflanked covered wagons. It is an old story that may > not be played out in our lifetimes, but at least we have the > opportunity to witness the majesty of a powerful new wave forming on > the horizon, if only we would lift our eyes to see, and then perhaps > nudge things along as best we can. > > Once a better foundation for knowledge work is in place by > strengthening alphabet technology, then folks are positioned to > accomplish Doug's goals for improving improvement using open source > modalities. First, however, we need a better way to leverage > intelligence, as explained in NWO.... > > http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/03/02/03/0309.HTM#42HC > > This requires focusing brilliant talent for analysis, demonstrated on > the license issue, on "knowledge," which is painful in the beginning > as Eric noted on 000503, but very soon rewarding, satisfying and fun > to work intelligently. It only takes a little focus. > > Rod From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 08:43:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2459C56FF3; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F288456FF2 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020517155938.FQES12519.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:59:38 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020517085607.00de08d0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:57:13 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Creative Commons Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.creativecommons.org/ You're making a movie and need still images. You're starting out as a photographer and want to spread the word. You're teaching a course and need materials. You've written an article and you want people to analyze it. You're building a website and need graphics. You're a digital artist who wants to collaborate with other artists. You're performing a concert and need a symphony. You've composed a symphony and want people to perform it. How will Creative Commons help you? Cultivating a New Creative Commons: Creative Commons is a non-profit organization founded on the notion that some people would prefer to share their creative works (and the power to copy, modify, and distribute their works) instead of exercising all of the restrictions of copyright law. Giving License to Creativity: Our initial goal is to provide an easy way for people (like scholars, musicians, filmmakers, and authors--from world-renowned professionals to garage-based amateurs) to announce that their works are available for copying, modification, and redistribution. We are building a Web-based application for dedicating copyrighted works to the "public domain," and for generating flexible, generous licenses that permit copying and creative reuses of copyrighted works. Shining a Spotlight on Sharing: We want to make it easy for people to find works that are in the public domain or licensed on generous terms. We are developing a method for labeling such works with metadata that identify their terms of use. Potential users could then search for works (say, photos of the Empire State Building) based on the permitted uses (say, noncommercial copying and redistribution). From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 13:21:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4742D56FF3; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D74556FF2 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25773 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:37:48 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4HKblW13044 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE56A1B.67A79352@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:37:48 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020517054915.40782.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > We have to be carefull about this one point : > > > * build proprietary add-ons for a GPL'd OHS, > > Creating derived works of a GPled program, and > distributing them is a way to get your self in > trouble. That's really too bad. Outside of writing a book, that was the only possibility in the long list that let you create something that went out and produced income while you're sleeping. Everything else is labor-intensive, which does little to achieve the goal of freeing up time to devote on the "important" work. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 13:37:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4D27E56FF4; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D042456FF3 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09366 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4HKrqW16407 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE56DE1.9C251B73@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:53:53 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Collaboration Improvemenet Ideas References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Great, great post, Rod. I wish I could reply to Paul's response as well, so that the two would be tied together. Ah, well. In the meantime, I had to post one. I think Paul's reaction to the indemnification issue is nothing if not prudent. The problem with legal documents is that you *can't* base them on what you might reasonably, expect. You *have* to base them on what could happen, no matter how seemingly remote the possibility. Otherwise, you put yourself in a position where you can find yourself royally screwed. So I think it makes sense to resolve that issue. If a GPL license will get people building stuff and begin to produce work product, then by God we should go for it! I tend to think in commercial terms, but that doesn't make it the only viable path. Mosaic was given away for several years before it accreted enough users to enjoy the snowball effect. I expect that a similar timeline would be followed for a KM-based collaboration tool, so free stuff makes sense. You're right, though. We *haven't* fully resolved the issues that would let us write a specification for others to follow. We know we need quite a bit more trial and error before we'll be in a position to do that. If that path works, it will take care of humanity, which is the more important goal. As for my personal goals, of course, there is still a mismatch. Especially with a GPL license, after 5 years of (let us assuime) totally successful development, I'd still find myself in the same position that I am in today -- having to work at other jobs, unable to devote as much time as I would like to the projects that I conceive as important at that time. The moral dilemma then becomes: a) Do I devote my spare time to a project that benefits humanity, but which holds no promise for freeing up my time for other important work, or b) Will I do more good in the long run by working on a project which achieves lesser goals, but which produces the wherewithal to spend more time on good projects in the future. It's not an easy choice, because there is no clear way to see the outcome. You kind of have to go with your gut, I guess. It will be interesting to see how this project develops, and how my other ideas pan out! :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 14:32:08 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CC7AB56FF5; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6386B56FF4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08795 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4HLmGW28106 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE57AA1.2402189B@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:48:17 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] PSVI (Post Schema Validation Infoset) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517115331.025c6010@pop.storm.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thanks, Ken!! "G. Ken Holman" wrote: > The set of information passed to an application from an XML document after > a schema-aware processor has processed that XML document. > > It is an abstraction, though a few proposals are out there for serializing > it into a physical entity. > > There isn't just one PSVI, you have to know which PSVI you are > talking/thinking about. > > The term was introduced with the W3C XML Schema work, and that work defines > *a* PSVI relative to that technology, but the term is being used more > widely. Note that an application can augment a PSVI and pass that > augmented set of information to another application. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 14:39:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2D00556FF7; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC06256FF5 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24367 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:56:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4HLtZW29137 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE57C58.37E937F1@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:55:36 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Case In Point Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On this list, we have the likes of Ken Holman, Jeff Conklin, Eugene Kim, Lee Iverson, Paul, and ..., and..., and... Basically, we've got a HUGE talent pool. And we've had it for a long time. Suppose that every member of this group at its inception had the freedom to devote a couple of years to the project. Where we would be today, two years later?? However, as important as this project is, and as clear as that importance is to all of us, the fact is that we are *still* out in the world earning a living, instead of focusing on this important work. Is that a tragedy, or what? The only impediment to doing the work has been the greater tragedy of starving to death. But what an insurmountable impediment that has been! I like free. I *love* free. But when I think about the progress that hasn't been made... And I wonder how the concept of "free" will pry open the reservoir of talent we need to succeed. Please, let me be wrong... From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 15:11:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B3BEA56FF8; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44B6956FF7 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020517222737.20232.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [149.225.38.13] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:27:37 PDT Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:27:37 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE56A1B.67A79352@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > That's really too bad. Outside of writing a book, > that > was the only possibility in the long list that let > you > create something that went out and produced income > while you're sleeping. Hmmm..... you can still sell your modules. > Everything else is > labor-intensive, > which does little to achieve the goal of freeing up > time > to devote on the "important" work. Hmmm..... well, I am not sure what to say, either you make sure all your add-ones are gpl, or you will find people opting out very quickly. All of a sudden no-one wants to contribute because XYZ will be just taking it a running with it. That is what the LGPL is for, providing linkage to third parties. How many of you want to build non-free addons? Who wants to contribute core code? What is the dividing line? Who is to say what is free and what is not? There is not an infrastructure yet, a data model a transport mechanism. Once that is in place, and it could be done under the LGPL, then you can start creating applications. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 15:16:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6DBBC56FF9; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13303.mail.yahoo.com (web13303.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4A3756FF8 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020517223237.60743.qmail@web13303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [149.225.36.34] by web13303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:32:37 PDT Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:32:37 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Case In Point To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE57C58.37E937F1@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > And I wonder how the concept of "free" will pry open > the reservoir of talent we need to succeed. I think that you need a game plan: What has to be written : what function, what modules, what interfaces, what classes? What applications, what services? This needs to be tacked down, you need a design to get contributions, a map so people know where to put thier efforts. With or without the discussion of licence, mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 16:20:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A560556FFA; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (mta4.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.142]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07B0356FF9 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attglobal.net ([63.206.91.56]) by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0GWA00FWK13OB5@mta4.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:34:35 -0700 From: Rod Welch Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <3CE5857B.5573127F@attglobal.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> <3CE5150D.742CD1D4@kurtz-fernhout.com> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul, First, as always your scholarship and measured analysis are greatly appreciated. Several points in my letter may warrant further comment... 1. Collaboration is not an appropriate initial objective for developing a "general" technology to strengthen knowledge work, currently supported by tools for wordprocessing (e.g., email), spreadsheets and pictures, but rather better collaboration is a natural by-product of augmenting intelligence that improves the ability to think, remember and communicate. 2. Augmenting intelligence requires an architecture of human thought, i.e., we have to figure out how what we want to work better, works now, so we know what to build. This requires applying scholarship to understand the difference between information and knowledge in order to strengthen alphabet technology. If we refuse to work out a meaningful distinction then we remain stuck in IT and will never reach KM, leaving Microsoft in play. 3. Work product demonstrates added value which requires licensing. It is possible to stumble onto a design without first formulating an architecture of human thought. But, it takes a peculiar history working in particular ways for a long time doing KM manually. You need a lot of time to experiment and make mistakes. Significant social objections have to be overcome. Since people have to make a living and this requires following a prescribed culture, in most cases there is not enough time nor emotional stamina to stumble into a pattern of doing the necessary tasks long enough to create a useful design for KM. That means the quickest way to accomplish your goal of a more powerful general application for knowledge work, e.g., an OHS/DKR, is to invest the same level of effort in understanding an architecture of human thought that has already been devoted to the license issue. To resolve worry about "permission to use," don't share your analysis with anyone. Keep it a secret rather than put it on the Internet, like POIMS, and use it to build a tool for converting information into knowledge. Show work product demonstrating you have a powerful secret. Then, when others say "Hey, we're tired of making mistakes and losing money with IT! We want to work intelligently," negotiate terms for sharing or selling your discovery according to your needs and interests, which typically evolve over the period required to get this done. It may turn out that no amount of analysis, in the absence of experience using SDS or doing KM manually, can help people cross over the rubicon because the matter at issue is so foundational to the binary structure of human existence, essentially reflecting the mystery that comprises conscious and subconscious processing, that it cannot be grasped without experience. In any case, scholarship, evidenced by your letters, and that of others, can be done with present technology, and so is worth a try to discover how to move from information to a culture of knowledge. Rod ***************** Paul Fernhout wrote: > > Rod- > > I enjoyed your post. > > First, I agree with you general sentiment you in particular have long > made clear essentially that Knowledge Management is a verb, and it takes > significant and continuing skilled effort to build and maintain a > meaningful and useful record, that there is value in restatement and > editing and summarizing, and these things are at the core of human > thought and can't easily if ever be automated (or if they can be > automated, the automations will essentially be virtual humans). > > I agree further that existing KM technique could be improved, and any > OHS effort should discuss this, and also that existing technique (such > as your POIMS represents as one illustration) could simply be used more > to great benefit. The lack of adoption of such techniques is in part > culture and a matter of priorities, as well as the simple hurdles any > new technique faces in becomign widespread (like handwashing before > surgery took a long time to become accepted). Further, that in general > the application of these techniques using simple tools, like HTML and > hand coding (or simple scripts) on important issues is probably of more > immediate value than lots of new code (unless, in my opinion, that new > code really leverages some key enabling idea, which is my hope with some > of my own free software work). > > Consider this article that just came up in Slashdot: > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/16/1647211&mode=thread&tid=134&threshold=2 > > "ThinkCycle is an MIT Media Lab > > project to apply SETI@Home principles to design > > problems for underserved communities. Only, intead of donating > > spare cpu cycles, you donate spare 'think cycles.' Their aim is to > > build a community of designers, inventors and innovators that > > want to collaborate on developing novel solutions to some what > > intractable problems like clean water access , cholera treatment > > and appropriate shelters. Their aim is to encourage an "open > > source" ethos for tough design and technology challenges." > > There is a long discussion there about "ThinkCycle" and effort to get > people to collaborate on solving world problems. While most applaud the > effort, a lot of negative things are said about the approach, > essentially that at some point one has to translate thoughts into > action. To put it in the words on a card I saw Marty Johnson of Isles, > Inc. have on his monitor -- > http://www.isles.org/ > "You can't plow a field by turning it over in your mind". > > Much of the discussion in the slashdot article is relevant to consider > as regards an OHS for solving world problems -- in fact, to an extent > "ThinkCycle" is another OHS attempt. That said, sometimes enough > thinking comes up with an innovative solution or approach that requires > less effort to implement, thus reducing a sort of quantum barrier to > human activity relative to available community energy, which allows a > solution to tunnel through. Yet, at the end of the day, some actual work > must be done, money and resources transferred, hands held, stories told, > holes dug, houses built, wires run, fields plowed, and so on. When I was > a kid, I received an invitation to apply at Deep Springs college, and > sometimes I regret not pursuing that, since a key aspect of the > curriculum is taking care of cows, where the point is, no matter how > much you debate philosophy, the cows need to be milked. > http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0219/p13s02-lehl.html > On the other hand, as mainly a bright but lazy person, my response is > still generally to automate when possible, even if it takes a heck of a > lot of work to automate > http://www.dairybiz.com/archive/tech_30.htm > since I've been fond of robotics since seeing "Silent Running" as a kid. > Or alternatively, and even smarter, it is to simply choose a path that > neither needs much automation or much work, like Permaculture > http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/perma.html > or Passive Solar. > http://www.aaepassivesolar.com/low-energy.html > [And it looks like Eric is pursuing some of these ideas as well with 3D > forest agriculture and such.] > > At the very least, spending a lot of time thinking prevents one from > doing harm. The first part of the Hippocratic Oath if often paraphrased > as "first, do no harm" (although that exact phrasing isn't actually in > the oath): > http://www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.html > The orginal open source version of the oath (at least as regards > offspring of your teacher): > > and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, > > without fee or stipulation > A modern version allowing more commercialism of medical knowledge says: > > in the same spirit and dedication to > > impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. > Shows the changes in our society over thousands of years. So, open > source and free software is "radical", where radical means a return to > the roots. > > I bring this up in part because the Hippocratic Oath is to an extent a > constitution for how a group of doctors works together to develop and > share medical knowledge. I think software licensing choices (such as > using the GPL) also implicitly define constitutions for working > together. While there are many difficulties to both building and using > an OHS (not the least of which is all the other related efforts out > there already and concern over reinventing the wheel), licensing is one > of them, because it reflects the rules of the collaboration. We need to > resolve all of these issues to an extent before we have code. While it > is true some code has been produced related to purple numbers or > translating Augment documentation to HTML, I see those as more utilities > than the fundamental core of an OHS system. So licensing for them hasn't > been such a big issue because they are more "leaf nodes" as opposed to > "trunk" code. I could potentially use such leaf code and replace them > more easily if there was a licensing issue than I could deal with having > to replace a trunk supporting all my own leaves. > > And frankly, to respectfully disagree, I think the indemnification > aspect of permision to use is a major stumbling block. One may think I'm > paranoid, but if such legal actions and related large costs weren't > possible or even likely down the road, then why is that phrasing in > there at all? It is precisely because such problems are possible and > perhaps likely. And if one admits that there is a reason that clause is > in there, then the issue becomes fairness and respect towards volunteers > and their contributions. One might argue the indemnification clause is > mereley in there as a deterrent to dishonesty, but again, what message > does that convey to volunteers as an expectation of their behavior? > [Note: I have no problem with asking contributors to positively affirm > contributions are original, or authorized, or fair use, or so forth; > that level of butt protection is quite OK and prudent.] > > There is a core group here of ten or twenty posters here, but an OHS > effort, especially one rallying around a historic yet still vibrant > figure like Doug, could and should have thousands. Where are they? > Surely thousands have read these email archives or come across them in > Google or on Slashdot. I think part of the issue is a matter of respect > for the volunteer, lack of which has reduced bootstrapping. As I've said > before, my wife has seen the same thing at zoos, and I at other > non-profits, so this is not an isolated issue. It is just a typical > common place non-profit issue related to social engineering, and > mishandling volunteers has torpedoed projects many times in the past, > and handling volunteers well has also made thousands of projects big > successes. Obviously, you also want somewhat thick skinned volunteers > too, since no organization is perfect. > > Respectfully, while I as an individual or a project manager completely > agree with your magnifying glass focusing metaphor from an effectiveness > standpoint of much conventional software development, I completely > disagree with it from a free software or open source perspective. In a > free software project a coordinator has essentially no control over > volunteer contributions (except as far as rejecting them from a > repository one has sole control over, in which case the contributor can > post them elsewhere). One can at best provide interesting things to > inspire people, whether ideas or code. At any minute, at any > misunderstanding or disagreement, or at any unpredictable change in life > circumstance, a volunteer can disappear, to be never heard from again, > without even an explanation. Worse, they can get really pissed off and > widely badmouth the project. [And I am sorry to the extent my criticisms > come across that way; the intent is to bootstrap thigns here.] Perhaps, > at best, a volunteer coordinator can occasionally develop mutually > advantageous personal relationships of trust and commitment, which can > help smooth over the rough edges of any relationship. > > Look at it this way, money is to an extent like your magnifying glass to > get a bunch of minds somewhat focused on whatever problem you want to > think about. Well, there is no significant money here, and even if there > was in the order of billions, it would still be many orders of magnitude > below the total needed to do the job of reconstructing society on a > fairer, more just, and more sustainable basis. Yet, even if there were > trillions of dollars available (which there actually are!), effectively > in knowledge work most productivity is voluntary, because it is so hard > to monitor productivity of knowledge production. For example, one great > web page saying something new and important may be far more valuable > than 10,000 mediocre ones, but one may not know the value of that great > web page or its author until years later, and in fact that great web > page may be actively dismissed and edited out [negative productivity, > probably accounted for as positive editing productivity] because it does > not fit in well with the other 10,000. > > So, I would argue the effective relationship of volunteers is essential > to future success of the OHS and beyond that to humanity as a whole. > Note, I said "relationship" implying volunteers relating mainly to each > other (and to anyone fortunate enough to have a source of support > telling the employee to work in the area for pay). I did not write > "management"of volunteers implying paid people ordering volunteers what > to do. Naturally, if you respect someone, you often listen to their > advice, so any organization does develop its centers and hubs. It's just > a complex and dynamic social process. Perhaps because I have spent more > time consulting than managing, and when I have managed it has been > mainly college students who could easily quit anytime, I have a style > that essentially is persuasion not command. Perhaps this idea may help > when thinking of "managing" volunteers, instead consider volunteers more > like clients who are paying you (with their occasional attention) for > your advice on what are good things to do and good ways to do them. > Remember, volunteers can fire you at any time and for any reason, simply > by stopping to pay you (in their attention). > > Fact, is, I probably wouldn't know what to do with a billion dollars a > year anyway as far as focusing people on an OHS or anything else. I'd > probably just rent a big building (I know one for rent next to IBM > Research Hawthorne), hire bright people based on their past > accomplishments and volunteer work and previous commitment to free > software, bring in interesting speakers and toys, send congratulatory > emails a lot, have daily teas, and mainly just let people do what they > want, encouraging them to collaborate when they can, and maybe nagging > people in a nice way where they have the option to ignore me. > [Definitely would hire Eric!] Then I'd give everything away under free > licenses and hope for the best. Ah, what a fantasy -- not the funding > part, since there's plenty of money sloshing around for those who can > turn the right taps, but when I start thinking about HR, salary > squabbles, convincing people to move near the building, claims of > unfairness in hiring practices, people fighting over credit and > recognition, sexual harrasment lawsuits, bad press, etc. Probably easier > to just give grants to individuals with proven track records in free > software. > > Actually, now that I think of it, I know of such a place, and I used to > walk there sometimes, the Institute for Advanced Study (as Freeman Dyson > put it more or less, it is a successful place because it is just a motel > for scholars): > http://www.ias.edu/ > However, it is very steeped in an academic culture, not a world changing > or tool building one as in a free software sense. > > The Institute has no formal curriculum, degree programs, schedule of courses, > > laboratories, or other experimental facilities. It is committed to > > exploring the most fundamental areas of knowledge, areas > > where there is little expectation of immediate outcomes or > > striking applications--nonetheless, the long-term impact of Institute > > research has sometimes been dramatic. No contracted or directed > > research is done at the Institute, and it receives no income > > from tuition or fees. Resources for operations come from endowment income, > > grants from private foundations and government > > agencies, and gifts from corporations and individuals. > > It has no formal links to other educational > > institutions, but since its founding the Institute has enjoyed > > close, collaborative ties with Princeton > > University and other nearby institutions. > > Don't have a billion dollars a year, but mailing lists are cheap, and so > perhaps what I can afford is a poor man's research institute -- just a > mailing list as a sort of salon with interesting people collaborating on > the list in their spare time. This list could become that by developing > the right constitution and bootstrapping on past "permission to use". If > that issue isn't resolved (although it looks from what Doug writes like > the ice may finally be about to thaw), I'll just keep on doing stuff > anyway, although I do acknowledge the difficulty of connecting > visionaries which Doug has always gloriously accomplished (as was > pointed out to me in private by a list member). > > Look, let me put it this way. We already have an OHS. It consists of the > email archives on the web and Google. > http://www.google.com/ > I use it all the time, even if to just find links to my past posts. > This query pulls up stuff on you: > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bootstrap+welch&btnG=Google+Search > So, we're really just bootstrapping this into something better. So there > is code, just running behind the scenes at Google! > > But beyond code, what we need in my opinion is still a better > constitution for working together than the non-consititution of > "permission to use". That isn't enough -- we also still need code, and > we still need the techniques and habits of thought to do good knowledge > management, and we need content. And we need to bootstrap on what we > have to get to other levels, since the level we are on now (e.g. North > vs. South divide) just isn't stable even if we wanted to maintain the > status quo. > > -Paul Fernhout > Kurtz-Fernhout Software > ========================================================= > Developers of custom software and educational simulations > Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator > http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com > > Rod Welch wrote: > > > > Recent comments on license issues demonstrated brilliant talent by > > many contributors. > > > > Eric's letter today (shown below) referencing his excellent Treelight > > web site focuses on adding value to knowledge work, and seems to > > propose a technology project to improve collaboration. I believe this > > is an error. The first order of business should be intelligence based > > on an architecture of human thought. > > > > Earlier Paul worried that the license issue has prevented code from > > being contributed for the OHS/DKR. While I have admired Paul's > > analysis on many issues, this particular point is not clear in the > > record. > > > > A simple test is work product. > > > > Whether someone submits code or not is irrelevant if there is no work > > product that demonstrates added value to existing capabilities. An > > example is Doug's purple numbers system demonstrated in a letter on > > 001025 that showed added value, so people might ask to have that code, > > and at that point licensing becomes an important concern. Similarly, > > Eric, Paul, Jack, Lee, Eugene and others have made helpful > > contributions, and so licensing is critical, based on a demonstration > > of added value, as Doug did on 001025. For example, Eugene made > > improvements in purple numbers and Jack planned to produce an engine > > to organize the record. Eric planned to create something on version > > control and categories. Show work product that shows added value to > > generate demand for the code; then address licensing. > > > > This still leaves open the question of whether meaningful progress has > > occurred on producing an OHS/DKR, or is deterred pending resolution of > > license matters? > > > > OHS/DKR capability is so valuable, as explained in Eric's letter on > > 000120 citing Doug's vision presented in the Colloquium at Stanford, > > and on Eric's web site, per his letter below, for solving world > > problems, that it seems implausible for people to hold back creating > > useful code simply because of worry about licensing. In other words > > the needs Eric related on 000120 and later on 011003 are so huge and > > painfully frustrating that no one would stand by and endure suffering > > if they knew how to fix the problem. In that case, work product would > > demonstrate added value. Since there is no work product, this > > indicates that people don't know what to do. > > > > Eric's letter on 000503 made this very point. Earlier on 000405 Paul > > said close to the same thing. Nothing in the record shows that lack > > of understanding the design of KM has been repaired. > > > > Consideration might therefore be given to reviewing Eric's letter on > > 000423 talking about augmenting intelligence, because experience > > indicates intelligence helps collaboration. This requires re-thinking > > the meaning of "knowledge" based on Eric's letter on 000212 by > > applying the rigor invested the past week or so re-thinking license > > ideas. There is plenty of brain power in the group, but it needs to > > focus on things that make progress, rather than whatever pops into the > > mind at the moment, as Grant noted on 001012. In this respect I > > differ slightly with Paul on the Termite production method used at > > Microsoft, Boeing and with the OHS/DKR effort the past few years. A > > million bright stars light up the heavens but do not produce enough > > energy to light a fire; while a simple magnifying glass focuses light > > in sufficient measure for ignition. > > > > The missing ingredients then are focus of management and focus of > > design on cognitive science, noted by Drucker in his article published > > in October of 1999. Recall that Mary Keeler discussed this somewhat in > > remarks at SRI on 000518 citing work by Peirce on semiotics. > > > > Once you establish an architecture of human thought that can be > > addressed with computer programming skills, you can build a technology > > that enables a dynamic knowledge repository to solve world problems. > > When people are able to work "intelligently," then there is > > opportunity to improve collaboration, as called out in Eric's web > > site. So long as knowledge and intelligence are ignored, people will > > remain in the dark using information technology which means continued > > dominance by Microsoft that has been a sore point in the group. The > > only way to transcend Microsoft is to leave them the monopoly for IT > > that is document centric, and move the market to KM by advancing > > alphabet technology beyond the model of documents in the same way that > > automobiles outflanked covered wagons. It is an old story that may > > not be played out in our lifetimes, but at least we have the > > opportunity to witness the majesty of a powerful new wave forming on > > the horizon, if only we would lift our eyes to see, and then perhaps > > nudge things along as best we can. > > > > Once a better foundation for knowledge work is in place by > > strengthening alphabet technology, then folks are positioned to > > accomplish Doug's goals for improving improvement using open source > > modalities. First, however, we need a better way to leverage > > intelligence, as explained in NWO.... > > > > http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/03/02/03/0309.HTM#42HC > > > > This requires focusing brilliant talent for analysis, demonstrated on > > the license issue, on "knowledge," which is painful in the beginning > > as Eric noted on 000503, but very soon rewarding, satisfying and fun > > to work intelligently. It only takes a little focus. > > > > Rod From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 16:49:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 05A0956FFB; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D00056FFA for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.52]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29953 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4I05LT12170 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE59AC0.EE9F9969@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:05:20 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Case In Point References: <20020517223237.60743.qmail@web13303.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > What has to be written : > > what function, what modules, what interfaces, what > classes? What applications, what services? > > This needs to be tacked down, you need a design to get > contributions, a map so people know where to put thier > efforts. Yup. But if the complexity were of such managable proportions that we could wrap our heads around it, it would have been done. I took two strong stabs at, first, the requirements, and then the design. Lee took an even stronger at the design for the underlying architecture needed to build such a thing on top of it, but the design for that thing is still not fully specified. This is all part and parcel of the issue. It is in the nature of the "wicked problems" that Horst advanced and Conklin so eloquently described. To this, we add the chicken and egg dilemma that we do not have the collaboration tools necessary to do collaborate remotely on the design of a collaboration system. Just after the 2000 Colloquium, one of the members of this list proposed that those of us who were physically co-located should get together and make a first cut at such a thing, so we could then begin to use it and improve it. It made sense, and we spent a lot of time in an attempt to do just that. The work product you've seen, in form of requirements, proposals, and preliminary designs, came out of those efforts. What will it take to finalize the specification? Deep thought, trial and error, and prototypes. What will it take to create the prototypes we can reason with and reason about? Specifications. Do you detect the circularity. I advanced one proposal a while back. Eugene has been working on purplizing our email archives, Lee has worked on an engine, Jack wrote some things, Paul has something, Mike has something. Others have advanced suggestions that I'm too bandwidth-limited to recall. Lots of folks have pieces of the puzzle. And they're all their in the archives. In fact, there are dozens of options for most every facet of the puzzle, and hundreds of combinations that might work together. How do we put the best of the ideas together? How do we take baby steps that lead towards bigger steps, and eventually giant leaps? I think purpilizing the archive, making it accessible, and beginning to add categories to it helps to begin making a KB out of it. So I suspect that Eugene has been taking the appropriate kinds of steps all along. (It would be most enlightening, I think, to start putting an IBIS structure on top of that archive, as a way to relate the pieces in it.) After my conversations with Lee, I think a Nodal kind of system has a strong chance of being the underlying data engine for that step, or at least the next one. But I never got that sense from our electronic interchanges -- a sign that head-to-head communication is still the best option at our disposal. Bottom line: How do you specify what you do not yet understand? The answer is by incremental design. Build it. Learn from it. Modify it. Eventaully figure out that it is a dead end. Throw it away and start over, using what you learned previously. It's easier this time, but you still learn from it, and continue modifying it. Repeat until you've got it. THEN you can write up a specification for it, because now you understand it. Finally, I would ask that we try to put the shoe on the other foot for a while. How about if those of us with code that isn't ready to share, or which can't be contributed for licensing reasons, write up *their* specifications. Then we can at least think about the approach they recommend. I did that with the code I built. I wrote up a design document that tracked my thinking as I was writing. That's my specification, such as it is. Since the complexity eventaully overwhelmed me, it never got cleaned up and simplified down to the final, working version. Lee has written up a generic description of Nodal, too. The only part that remains is writing up a spec that translates requirements into a design that uses his engine, or one like it with the modifications Eugene suggested. (I don't recall that a conclusion was ever reached in that discussion, BTW. Was it?) Basically, after a lot of hours in weekly meetings, a lot of thinking with respect to requirements, and even an attempt at generating some useful code, I think I've contributed what I reasonably can as a solo developer. It's there on my site. Improvements are welcome. Alternate specifications are welcome. Ideas, code, and suggestions are welcome. Have at it! From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 16:51:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7E8C756FFC; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED56656FFB for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.52]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13693 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 18:08:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4I07QT13032 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE59B3D.EDD4F1D7@sun.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:07:25 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> <3CE5150D.742CD1D4@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE5857B.5573127F@attglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Another great post, Rod. Forgive me for not including POIMS in the list of work products that have been previously advanced. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 17:15:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 590E056FFD; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F276556FFC for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWA004B16STJ5@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:31:46 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing In-reply-to: <3CE5857B.5573127F@attglobal.net> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Hi - Here is data from a recent worldwide survey on "Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing." 'Thought it was germane considering Rod's observations and particularly, "...this requires following a prescribed culture" and "...a culture of knowledge." It is of little surprise that the "biggest (Organizational Culture) influence on knowledge sharing" is a High Humane Orientation, i.e., "encourage and reward individuals for being fair and kind in their interactions with other organization members." The close second, (and often overlooked) cultural factor is a strong "Future orientation," i.e, "encourages and rewards long-term versus short-term planning and projects." Cultural planks such as these are critical to any successful OHS platform. Cheers, John Thank you very much for your quick response on my poll concerning organizational culture and knowledge sharing. With the aid of all your responses it was possible to determine three organizational culture dimensions that are expected to have the biggest influence on knowledge sharing: 1. Future orientation (94% of respondents indicated that a high future orientation will have a positive impact on knowledge sharing) 2. Performance orientation (86% of respondents indicated that a high performance orientation will have a positive impact on knowledge sharing) 3. Humane orientation (98% of respondents indicated that a high humane orientation will have a positive impact on knowledge sharing) In order to determine the impact of organizational culture on knowledge sharing practices further research will consist of an empirical case study. In depth interviews will be conducted at three subsidiaries of a Dutch multinational. These interviews will focus on knowledge sharing practices, and the organizational culture dimensions. Kind regards, Jeannette Coumou -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John Maloney [mailto:jtmalone@pacbell.net] Verzonden: dinsdag 7 mei 2002 20:18 Aan: Coumou, Jeanette Onderwerp: RE: Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing _________________________________________________________________ Organizational culture and knowledge sharing My research concerns the influence, that 9 cultural dimensions(1) have on knowledge sharing within organizations. Could you please: * Rank the influence that the 9 dimensions below have (in your opinion) on knowledge sharing within organizations. (1=has highest influence; 9=has lowest influence). * Give a rating of P (Positive) and N (Negative) to indicate the nature of the influence. Ranking of the influence of the 9 dimensions on knowledge sharing: 1. High Power Distance (Ranking =; Rating=)(Power Distance is the degree to which members of an organization (should) accept distinctions between members on the basis of organizational position) 2. High Uncertainty Avoidance (Ranking=; Rating=) (Uncertainty Avoidance is the degree to which members of an organization (should) actively attempt to reduce ambiguity in organizational life by relying on norms, rules and policies.) 3. High Humane Orientation (Ranking=;Rating=) (Humane Orientation is the degree to which members of an organization (should) encourage and reward individuals for being fair and kind in their interactions with other organization members.) 4. High Assertiveness (Ranking=;Rating=) (Uncertainty Avoidance is the degree to which members of an organization are (should be) assertive, dominant, and demanding in their interactions with other organization members.) 5. High Gender Egalitarianism (Ranking=;Rating=) (Gender egalitarianism is the degree to which men and women are (should be) treated equally in the organization in terms of tasks assigned and opportunities for training and advancement.) 6. High Future Orientation (Ranking=;Rating=) (Future Orientation is the degree to which an organization (should) encourages and rewards long-term versus short-term planning and projects.) 7. High Performance Orientation (Ranking=;Rating=) (Performance Orientation is the degree to which an organization (should) focuses on and rewards high performance and efforts to improve quality.) 8. High Individualism (Ranking=;Rating=) (Individualism / Collectivism is the degree to which an organization (should) focuses on individual accomplishment versus group accomplishment.) 9. High Organizational Collectivism (Ranking=;Rating=) (Organizational Collectivism is the degree to which organizational members (should) take pride in being associated with the organization.) 1Source: Dickson, Aditya and Chhokar (2000) have operationalized organizational culture, by identifying nine dimensions of organizational culture. These dimensions are based on the works of Hofstede (1980), Hofstede and Bond (1988), Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (1961), McClelland (1961, 1985) and Putnam (1993). == John Maloney www.kmcluster.com IM:jheuristic Create the Future! Join the KM Cluster -- http://www.kmcluster.com/register.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Rod Welch Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 3:35 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing Paul, First, as always your scholarship and measured analysis are greatly appreciated. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 17 17:15:57 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CE65156FFE; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9831756FFD for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020518003211.OPLG14522.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 00:32:11 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020517172820.00e005d0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:29:46 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CE59B3D.EDD4F1D7@sun.com> References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> <3CE5150D.742CD1D4@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE5857B.5573127F@attglobal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org A while back, I began to collect my thoughts. Far from complete, and, in fact, I haven't touched those pages for a while now. However, perhaps it's time to reveal them and see what might come of that. http://www.thinkalong.com/JP/cpc/ Cheers Jack From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 18 03:07:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6409F56FF3; Sat, 18 May 2002 03:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from siaar1ab.compuserve.com (siaar1ab.compuserve.com [149.174.40.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85B6756FF2 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 03:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by siaar1ab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id GAA29182 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 18 May 2002 06:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns0 (sfr-tgn-sfe-vty1.as.wcom.net [216.192.7.1]) by siaar1ab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id GAA29173; Sat, 18 May 2002 06:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020518031329.0097b180@pop3.ecs.soton.ac.uk> X-Sender: thn@pop3.ecs.soton.ac.uk (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 03:13:29 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Ted Nelson Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] :zz: ZigZag patent (short reply) [Was: **** Instant Outlining !!! ***] Cc: ted@xanadu.net, marlene@xanadu.net, xanni@xanadu.net, eharter@din.or.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sorry about delay replying. My reply got too long. =20 Jack Park says >Ted, I think you're in the hotseat to respond to this one publically. I=20 >won't have any problems with however you may respond, but, like Murray,=20 >I'll drop anything to do with zzstructures if the patent is anything but a= =20 >defensive patent to keep gorillas from patenting it. The short answer is, I have no idea what's going to be done with the patent, because I will probably need to sell it. If anyone wants the long answer I'll post it. Best, Ted N. At 11:11 AM 4/25/02 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Ted and Marlene, >Ted, I think you're in the hotseat to respond to this one publically. I=20 >won't have any problems with however you may respond, but, like Murray,=20 >I'll drop anything to do with zzstructures if the patent is anything but a= =20 >defensive patent to keep gorillas from patenting it. > >Cheers >Jack > >>Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org >>Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:23:56 +0100 >>From: Murray Altheim >>Organization: Knowledge Media Institute >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1)=20 >>Gecko/20020315 >> Netscape6/6.2.2 >>X-Accept-Language: en-us >>To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >>Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] :zz: ZigZag patent and trademark [Was: ****=20 >>Instant >> Outlining !!! ***] >>Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >>Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >> >>That would be the question I was asking as well. I'll avoid >>further contact with the stuff if so. I can't imagine going >>to the trouble of patenting something unless one had some >>notion of benefiting at some point from the patent. >> >>I consider the research I'm doing right now to be predominantly >>influenced by ISO 10744 Hytime and ISO 16250 Topic Maps, and >>I wouldn't make any references to zzstructures in either my >>software or Ph.D. if that might end up taking me into a >>courtroom... a bit shy 'bout these things yuh unnerstan'? >> >>Jack Park wrote: >> >>>On second thought, does this mean I should either stop playing with=20 >>>zzstructure code or negotiate some deal to use it? >>>Jack >> >> >>>> >> >>At 10:21 AM 4/23/2002 +0000, Murray Altheim wrote: >>[...] >>>> >> >Jack, >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Are you saying that this has already been done and I should lay off >>>> >> >the idea in order to avoid a patent infringement lawsuit? >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Yikes! >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Murray >> >> >>Murray >> >>...................................................................... >>Murray Altheim >>Knowledge Media Institute >>The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK >> >> In the evening >> The rice leaves in the garden >> Rustle in the autumn wind >> That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu > > _________________________________________________ Theodor Holm Nelson =95 Designer =95 Consultant =20 Founder, Project Xanadu (the original hypertext project), 1960+ Senior Fellow, the McLuhan Institute, Toronto, Canada Visiting Professor, University of Southampton, England =95 e-mail: ted@xanadu.net,cc:marlene@xanadu.net =95 http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/ =95 http://xanadu.com =95 world-wide phone +1/415/ 331-4422 =95 fax +1/415/332-0136 Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965 _________________________________________________ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 19 09:48:50 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8421756FF3; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D75C56FF2 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020519170501.VAPG14522.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony>; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:05:01 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020519095759.00de9230@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:02:24 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [issues] Re: Tetronic Notation; "...a significant generalization of Frege." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I'm personally always fascinated with various forms of diagrammatic reasoning. That topic was among the topics thought important by the late Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon. This approach looks pretty simple. Cheers Jack >From: Thommandel@aol.com >To: issues@isss.org > >Hi, as most of you know, I have been trying to promote a "General System >Principle" >in lieu of a "General System Theory" along the lines of the Chinese >Yin/Yang. I am happy to announce some progress, albeit using the universal >principle diagrams (see www.isss.org/primer/tetron/tetron/tetrongifs.htm) >I am having difficulty trying to find the right words to express the >significance of this concept. While the notational form is mine, the >principle it works with has been around for some time now. I want to say >that this principle can lead to a new knowledge base that transcends all >knowledge and thus could usher in a new era as significant as when science >first appeared on the scene. > >tom > >In a message dated 05/18/02 3:39:00 AM Central Daylight Time, >kauffman@uic.edu writes: >> >> > >> > Subj: Re: Tetronic Notation >> > Date: 05/17/02 6:25:08 PM Central Daylight Time >> > From: kauffman@uic.edu (Louis H Kauffman) >> > To: Thommandel@aol.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Dear Tom Mandel, >> > Thank you! >> > It is very much related to Frege's notation. >> > Frege's notation for implication is really close to what you write and it >> > was intended to map the relationship of premise and conclusion. I would >> > say you have a significant generalization of Frege. >> > Best, >> > Lou K. >> > On Fri, 17 May 2002 Thommandel@aol.com wrote: >> > >> > > http://www.isss.org/primer/tetron/tetron/tetrongifs.htm >> > > >> > > Dear Dr. Kauffman; >> > > >> > > I have invented a new notational form I call tetronic notation which >> has >> > been >> > > described by others as consistant with Spencer Brown, Peirce, and >> Rosen's >> > > modeling relation. In addition I have found it to be consistant with a >> > great >> > > deal of other ontological forms. Please take a look at it, I have it >> at the >> > > above URL. >> > > >> > > Tom Mandel, Webmaster isss.org >> > > 3008 W 109th St >> > > Chicago Il >> > > 773 445 6882 >> > > >> > > FYI >> > > Ref: >> > > Subj: Re: [issues] Re: Spencer Brown's Laws of Form. >> > > Date: 05/13/02 3:46:36 PM Central Daylight Time >> > > From: john.collier@kla.univie.ac.at (John Collier) >> > > To: Thommandel@aol.com >> > > >> > > At 10:07 PM 13/05/02, you wrote: >> > > >It should be easy to come up with any number of notations, once one >> knows >> > > >what should be notated. It is most interesting that both Spencer and >> > > >Peirce have notations that are consistent with that of the general >> form. >> > > >But I would say that both Spencer and Peirce are not mainstream >> thinkers >> > > >and writers. I would say that both are relatively unknown by the >> > > >scientific community. I think that the domain we are talking about >> is the >> > > >domain of the simplest. I think that the domain of the simlest is >> unique >> > > >in the sense that is can be made into a principle, the first >> principle, >> > > >and it is this principle which can be worked with further. >> > > )John) >> > > Yes. I do agree with that. I had intended to think about your >> diagrams in >> > > more detail. They look interesting. I have been very busy recently with >> > > travel and talks. I don't recall if I referred you to Louis Kauffman's >> > > article on Peirce and Spencer Brown. It is one of the best things I >> have >> > > read. You can find a copy at >> > > http://www.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/CHK.pdf >> > > >> > > John >> > > > From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 20 12:52:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 79FCD56FF4; Mon, 20 May 2002 12:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC1F256FF3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 12:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11347 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:08:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4KK8vD08870 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 13:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE957D9.5EDBB322@sun.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 13:08:57 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > Here is data from a recent worldwide survey on "Organizational Culture and > Knowledge Sharing." > ... > The close second, (and often overlooked) cultural factor is a strong "Future > orientation," i.e, "encourages and rewards long-term versus short-term > planning and projects." > > Cultural planks such as these are critical to any successful OHS platform. Don't I wish! My experience in the business world, however, suggests that the opposite is the case. When I have successfully managed to predict the future, the planning I put into developing in anticipation of it has proven incredibly useful. However, in a far larger percentage of the cases, I have over-thought and over-engineered features into products that took too long to develop, and which provided features that no one ever needed or used. I think we can take as a truism that we would *like* to encourage long term planning. But the hard facts of history and experience suggest that, (a) the world is likely to change in the interim, (b) our best guesses are likely to be wrong, (c) complex systems by their very nature often seem to produce results contrary to those we expect. The newest development methodology (can't remember its name) uses 3-week development cycles, so it can do fast iterations and learn from experience. In addition, those who get something out the door next week, no matter how flawed, tend to accumulate more funding, whether in the form of organizational buy-in, project funding, or customer use, than projects that take longer -- even if they turn out to be "better", in theory, the problems attendant upon learning a new, complex technology provides a powerful barrier to acceptance among people who "grew up" with the competing technology when it was first introduced. (Some of whom will have been writing books and running courses, by now.) So I would argue that "enouraging long term planning" might not only be unnecesary, it might actually be detrimental to the acceptance of an OHS. At least, my experience suggests that might be the counter-intuitive result of such a goal, which on its own merits is so inherently laudable. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 20 14:25:56 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 12FA356FF3; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97F5756FF2 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWF005MZIY2PK@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:42:13 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing In-reply-to: <3CE957D9.5EDBB322@sun.com> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org EA -- Thanks for your remarks. High levels of encouragement and reward for "long-term planning and projects" is an ideal environmental characteristic to expanding knowledge sharing and OHS success. An Asian archipelago off the northeast coast of the mainland, Japan, built the world's second largest economy in large part to "long-term planning and projects." It was achieved in almost no time! Keiretsus and lifelong employment are long-term concepts, for example. A cultural foundation is knowledge sharing due to these long-term perspectives. Ironically, in contrast to the technology saturated American knowledge worker, many computing propositions aren't even in the orbit of the average Japanese knowledge worker. They're rather unnecessary... Anybody that's been to a yakatori bar knows how extraordinarily productive and efficient transorganizational knowledge sharing, creation and diffusion is achieved by Japanese workers. What's also critical is lightweight always-on collaboration, social context and pervasive access in portable devices, e.g., NTT DoCoMo. Compare DoCoMo to something like the rigid offerings of Sprint or Notes and you'll get the idea. Another major factor is government/industry cooperation that enables, encourages and indeed rewards "long-term planning and projects." This is a natural behaviour for this recently feudal state, for example. Thus, elemental and organic -behaviors- trump any application. These sharing and humanistic traits only develop on the "long-term." Also, the logic of your statement "the acceptance of an OHS" is flawed. The thinking that collaborative knowledge networks must 'accept' an application to advance or factor itself has contributed to the 60-70% failure rate for these 'short-term' technology and application deployments. OHS is an ongoing practice. It's not something that needs to be 'accepted.' As an ongoing practice, success will be achieved in the long-term, and needs to be continuously encouraged and rewarded to bootstrap the required behavioral, process and technology portfolio. Furthermore, an effective, well-socialized OHS will -accept- the natural rhythms of human interaction and collaborative cadence while nurturing and sustaining transparent, highly congenial knowledge ecosystems. This will only be achieved by encouraging, rewarding and balancing "long-term planning" with the behavioral, process and technology perspectives. Cheers, -jtm From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 20 14:33:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3D21A56FF4; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABE8856FF3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25969 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4KLnnD01231 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE96F7E.FC51BFAA@sun.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:49:50 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > High levels of encouragement and reward for "long-term planning and > projects" is an ideal environmental characteristic to expanding knowledge > sharing and OHS success. > > An Asian archipelago off the northeast coast of the mainland, Japan, built > the world's second largest economy in large part to "long-term planning and > projects." It was achieved in almost no time! > > Keiretsus and lifelong employment are long-term concepts, for example. A > cultural foundation is knowledge sharing due to these long-term > perspectives. Yeah. It would indeed be cool if the systems helped to encourage long term thinking, by making it ultimately successful (as you intimate below). Being disposed toward long-term thinking, it is galling to so frequently find it counter-productive! > .... > As an ongoing practice, success will be achieved in the long-term, and needs > to be continuously encouraged and rewarded to bootstrap the required > behavioral, process and technology portfolio. That makes sense. > Furthermore, an effective, well-socialized OHS will -accept- the natural > rhythms of human interaction and collaborative cadence while nurturing and > sustaining transparent, highly congenial knowledge ecosystems. This will > only be achieved by encouraging, rewarding and balancing "long-term > planning" with the behavioral, process and technology perspectives. I like it. "Encourage" in the sense of long term success (and therefore long term survival) is a good argument. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 20 14:35:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0287056FF7; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8182E56FF4 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15793 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4KLpxD01620 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE97000.B3F61926@sun.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:52:00 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020517222737.20232.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > > That's really too bad. Outside of writing a book, > > that > > was the only possibility in the long list that let > > you > > create something that went out and produced income > > while you're sleeping. > Hmmm..... you can still sell your modules. > > > Everything else is > > labor-intensive, > > which does little to achieve the goal of freeing up > > time > > to devote on the "important" work. > Hmmm..... well, I am not sure what to say, either you > make sure all your add-ones are gpl, or you will find > people opting out very quickly. All of a sudden no-one > wants to contribute because XYZ will be just taking it > a running with it. > > That is what the LGPL is for, providing linkage to > third parties. > > How many of you want to build non-free addons? > Who wants to contribute core code? > > What is the dividing line? > Who is to say what is free and what is not? > > There is not an infrastructure yet, a data model a > transport mechanism. Once that is in place, and it > could be done under the LGPL, then you can start > creating applications. Actually, I have nothing to sell, and am not planning on selling anything. My arguments have always been predicated on the problem of funding people to build a thing that needs building. How do you do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to solve. That entire proposition has been a non-starter, however. It emerged still-born. The other avenue is GPL. I hope it succeeds, and that the obstacles to it are removed. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mon May 20 22:31:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 30EC056FF3; Mon, 20 May 2002 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D271E56FF2 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 22:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.226.115] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2002 22:47:34 PDT Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:47:34 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CE97000.B3F61926@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > My arguments have always been predicated on the > problem of > funding people to build a thing that needs building. > How do you > do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to > solve. I have thought about this over the holidays have have come up with some good ideas. 1. An OHS is data intensive. In order to be usefull you need a large body of data so that you can usefully cross reference. 2. An application of the OHS does not need to be GPLed. The content of the system, the usage of the system, the running and the advertising system, all can be run for profit by a company. Look at mp3.com that uses linux/php/apache to run a non-free service. 3. Again, the content of the system is not affected by the license of the core code. You might want to provide a LGPL lib to allow for the creation of custom applications. 4. The hypertext and webservices world is not really covered by the GPL v2. There is no way to stop a user from using http to access all of your data and create a derived product without linking and without permission. 5. The SQL world is just the same, you can use the LGPL libraries to access a postgres database and do not need to make anything GPL. 6.As soon as a company decides to implement it internally, and not to distribute it outside, they can customise the code to thier hearts content and have no obligation to republish. A consulting company could do this customization for the and make money doing so. So there are still many ways (both good and bad) for creating non-free all-for-profit derived works using an OHS. I hope that you found that interesting. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 00:25:59 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B713556FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6BCB56FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4L7g8F22958 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:42:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 02:42:08 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CE97000.B3F61926@sun.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Presumably there's piles of grant money out there for this sort of thing? Has that avenue been investigated? If not, where would one start? The NSF is funding a great deal of digital libraries research. An OHS has the potential to do for digital libraries what digital libraries may do for physical libraries... On Mon, 20 May 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote: > Actually, I have nothing to sell, and am not planning on selling > anything. > > My arguments have always been predicated on the problem of > funding people to build a thing that needs building. How do you > do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to solve. > > That entire proposition has been a non-starter, however. It > emerged still-born. The other avenue is GPL. I hope it succeeds, > and that the obstacles to it are removed. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 01:50:14 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1F9C756FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28F3F56FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 01:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4L96Pe23090 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:06:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 04:06:25 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CE3D070.5AE022B0@kurtz-fernhout.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On Thu, 16 May 2002, Paul Fernhout wrote: > Essentially, it seems as much as Doug originally said OHS would be open > source, it seems to me this particular community is having trouble > making that commitment in actuality (i.e. offering actual code and > content for use under a specific license) because most of its members > and core leadership have historically implicitly or explicitly expected > grant money to directly fund the work and its future enhancement, and > many other participants are here thinking they can make money > proprietarizing the result somehow (or integrating their current > proprietary approaches into it). Otherwise "permission to use" would > have been resolved two years ago. As someone who just raised the spectre of explicit granting, I'll go off on a somewhat related tangent: - I'm with Mike: given a pocket-guide spec I could and would code. In fact, to a certain extent, the work I'm doing with Kathryn on coming up with access structures and mechanisms for the unrev-ii archive is directly applicable to some of the OHS goals. The rest of my graduate work is likely to be focussed around that sort of thing in combination with development of tools for visualizations of document similarity. The point: I'm only able to do that work as a result of the loans I get from the federal government and the funding I get from the school. Unfortunately, as Paul has pointed out several times, the future availability of that work is still up in the air because of licensing confusion. I have an appointment tomorrow to start addressing that issue. I don't expect that to be fun. - Fat source-available projects like Linux and Apache have been driven by funded people. Linus got Linux off the ground while a student in Scandanavia, home of aggressively enlightened socialism. For most of the first few years of Linux many of the people actually making substantial code submissions either never slept (Alan Cox) or were university students or staff (Dave Miller). The development of Apache was essentially funded by the companies that "owned" the system administrators that were frustrated with the development process of the NCSA httpd. They collaborated, on company time, to fix bugs leading to a fork so they could get their "real" jobs done. I can tell you that in my several years as a system administrator an extremely large portion of my time was devoted to the upkeep of available source products because those products were essential to the services of the companies for which I worked. I agree that a project like this, with what amounts to a spiritual leader as relevant and cool and Doug E, ought to be thronged with developers. I can tell you, as someone who comes into this world from the free software development world, there is a definitely a problem of what amounts to marketing. This list sounds, for the most part, like a bunch of old men sharing links and complaining about licensing. I say that with a great deal of respect: you guys are _extremely_ smart, have a lot of very good ideas, have a good sense of what is good, constantly amaze me with the depth and bredth of knowledge you can bring to bear on subjects. However, there is no consistent or clear vision of what is being attempted here, no leadership, no milestones and very little code. There are developers here and presentations of the things they are developing, but they aren't integrated into a starting point of any sort. Much of the intro classes in my program at school have been related to concepts of human-centered computing and the like. Stuff that I've found very annoying because it focuses on creating software tools that are easy to use and easy to learn. This is an admirable goal, but the literature is so focussed on this aspect that little time is spent on questions such as "what are we trying to accomplish? what tasks are we attempting to augment or automate? why? how? is it necessary?" Being in that context has caused me to view most failed software ventures as not failures to create something but instead failures to do something worth doing or put that something in the right context. Cars are not easy to use in any absolute sense, despite being canonical objects in usability literature. They are instead culturally accepted; they are a part of our consciousness, made that way because the need to get across town in a hurry was created in a symbiotic co-evolution between technology and the society that created it. The same could be said for email clients. All email clients suck, some less than others, but they are considered easy enough to use by a large segment of society. I think the need for an OHS is far too abstract to be especially motivating in any concrete fashion. Instead of motivating people to code, it motivates people to talk about what's wrong with IP laws, food, and how we need better systems for representing knowledge in graphical formats. Others have suggested that we focus on a particular use case (Jack has mentioned education, I think this is still too abstract); something like that may give us a place to hang something. I'm not sure. What I am sure is that there is a cultural barrier to our success. There is not an economic problem, nor a talent problem. We have the people, either very present or lurking, to make something happen but we do not have the oomph. Is it a question of need (do we really need to get across town in a hurry?)? Is it a question of focus (what are we doing, really?)? I've hesitated to say anything before now because I did not feel it was appropriate. Perhaps that's the key: there's a strong sense of insidership here, without much mentoring. I've been around long enough now to realize this is not intentional but it still represents a strong barrier to participation. I feel like I have to think really hard before I post something: that is _entirely_ antithetical to the volunteer software development scene (in my analysis). We are, however, past the golden age of software volunteerism or nearing the end (to my eye the OpenSource(TM) movement killed it. I'm happy to discuss that, but this is not the place for it (so email me separately if you are interested)) so having a cool idea and enough cool code to show to potential helpers is no longer enough. There needs to be organization, focus, leadership, goals, distribution of tasks, etc etc etc. Infrastructure. In some ways that is truly unfortunate. I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to do the following to improve our infrastructure: - Create a ba-ohs-devel list where specifications and code can be discussed in a focussed fashion, leaving talk for things like licensing, sharing of links, tool ideas, implementation generalities, philophical meanderings related to an OHS. unrev-talk would be the place for still larger issues. A little rigorous self-moderating (in the "hey, move this to to unrev" sense) would be good. - Since we've had the "I think it should be GPL" statement from Doug, go ahead an put up an anonymous CVS server on lab.bootstrap.org, or somewhere similar, assign a CVS keeper (Eugene?), and starting diddling. - Proceed post haste, _regardless of licensing issues_ (hoping for good resolution) thus demonstrating our commitment, with reevaluating and refining the OHS spec, enculturating people along the way, and discovering tasks and milestones. But that won't be quite enough. There's more, the cultural thing. I don't really know what that is. Any ideas? -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 02:57:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D999256FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts16.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.4]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 39DE356FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.139]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020521101338.VHVC24582.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:13:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEA1E59.4976DE8C@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:15:53 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James (and everybody else interested in DKR/OHS). I have not really followed the licencing discussion, so I hope I am not off the beam here. But fastening on to what you said about the substance for an OHS to operate on, Fleabyte is being developed to become a _dynamic_ knowledge repository to be worked on (i.e. substance brought closer to the frontiers) by means of an OHS. While the OHS is being promoted and developed, there are a number of challenges facing us that we seek to overcome. One, of course, is getting appropriate involvement to staff the "frontier outposts." Another is to develop the contents page into a well-functioning journaling system. (In the meantime, people are working on making more accessible the body of Bootstrap discussion material that has been built up over the years.) We hope that Fleabyte will develop into a sort of educational journalism that takes scattered inputs from the world (raw or to some degree refined) and gradually refines that into up-to-snuff handbooks. What is perhaps different here from Doug's vision of handbooks is that the material does not so much pertain to an organization (corporate, governmental, or ngo), but to an "open" body that I perceive as a public interested in furthering the common good - ref. top left of Fleabyte's home page. A challenge for building and operating the relevant DKR is how to define its boundaries of interest. A challenge for the relevant OHS is how to select and allow parties - democratically! - to shape the content, especially where it will be impinged on by ideologies. Will it bear fruit? Well, we have our doubters and we have our dream. Henry James Michael DuPont wrote: > > My arguments have always been predicated on the > > problem of > > funding people to build a thing that needs building. > > How do you > > do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to > > solve. > > I have thought about this over the holidays have have > come up with some good ideas. > > 1. An OHS is data intensive. In order to be usefull > you need a large body of data so that you can usefully > cross reference. > > 2. An application of the OHS does not need to be > GPLed. The content of the system, the usage of the > system, the running and the advertising system, all > can be run for profit by a company. Look at mp3.com > that uses linux/php/apache to run a non-free service. > > 3. Again, the content of the system is not affected by > the license of the core code. You might want to > provide a LGPL lib to allow for the creation of custom > applications. > > 4. The hypertext and webservices world is not really > covered by the GPL v2. There is no way to stop a user > from using http to access all of your data and create > a derived product without linking and without > permission. > > 5. The SQL world is just the same, you can use the > LGPL libraries to access a postgres database and do > not need to make anything GPL. > > 6.As soon as a company decides to implement it > internally, and not to distribute it outside, they can > customise the code to thier hearts content and have no > obligation to republish. A consulting company could do > this customization for the and make money doing so. > > So there are still many ways (both good and bad) for > creating non-free all-for-profit derived works using > an OHS. > > I hope that you found that interesting. > mike > > ===== > James Michael DuPont > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 03:25:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0AC6456FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 03:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.198.79]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6442356FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 03:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely.concentric.net [207.155.198.83]) by darius.concentric.net [Concentric SMTP Routing 1.0] id g4LAerc28829 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from penelope (w234.z064001133.chi-il.dsl.cnc.net [64.1.133.234]) by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.9.1a) id GAA17144; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Sinclair" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Human-Links information organizer Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 05:40:23 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c200b3$ecde68e0$0601000a@penelope> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020513093917.00dcd680@thinkalong.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote > Take a look at the screenshot at > http://www.human-links.com/en/demo.php [..] Because this ties into some other stuff I've thought about, I took a quick gander at the product. I ran into some issues, however, which I've mentioned to the lead developer, Yves Simon. > It's downloadable for Wintel boxes now (linux, etc later, > they say). I > don't see any evidence of price, but the tutorial says that > in order to use > it you must sign onto their network, whatever that means. The Wintel support is pretty choppy - the installer flat out doesn't work on WinXP, and I had runtime problems pretty quickly on Win2K. This is what they call their first 'fully functional version' a year after they released their initial beta. The signon to the network ties back, from what I've been able to discern, to the P2P reference sharing they envision their application enabling (and which is what drew me in). I haven't asked specifically about source or pricing issues, before anyone asks. Yves was excited to hear someone had come across his work - he feels they need the publicity. -Eric -- mail: esinclai@pobox.com log: http://www.kittyjoyce.com/eric/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 04:26:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1C08356FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D16456FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-11206tu.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.27.190] helo=D9KP0711) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17A82h-00045I-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 07:43:04 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:47:13 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <002301c20082$958ba2a0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org One would start by examining the site http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ There have been two digital library initiatives so far, jointly funded by NSF, DARPA and NASA where they have pooled their money in funding the "next wave of the web". NSF is the lead on this. Both have been fully allocated and are now closed. No new initiative has been announced yet. We are working on keeping track of any new initiative. Doug's keynote at the World Library Summit is pulling the Bootstrap Alliance into the 21st century library community as a place that is particularly receptive to his ideas. Mei Lin -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of cdent@burningchrome.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:42 AM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Presumably there's piles of grant money out there for this sort of thing? Has that avenue been investigated? If not, where would one start? The NSF is funding a great deal of digital libraries research. An OHS has the potential to do for digital libraries what digital libraries may do for physical libraries... On Mon, 20 May 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote: > Actually, I have nothing to sell, and am not planning on selling > anything. > > My arguments have always been predicated on the problem of > funding people to build a thing that needs building. How do you > do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to solve. > > That entire proposition has been a non-starter, however. It > emerged still-born. The other avenue is GPL. I hope it succeeds, > and that the obstacles to it are removed. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 04:27:53 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6EFDC56FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C97B556FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 12:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: <3CEA32C9.4040707@open.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:43:05 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Cc: ted@xanadu.net, marlene@xanadu.net, xanni@xanadu.net, eharter@din.or.jp Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] :zz: ZigZag patent (short reply) [Was: **** Instant Outlining !!! ***] References: <3.0.6.32.20020518031329.0097b180@pop3.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Ted Nelson wrote: > Sorry about delay replying. My reply got too long. > > Jack Park says > >>Ted, I think you're in the hotseat to respond to this one publically. I >>won't have any problems with however you may respond, but, like Murray, >>I'll drop anything to do with zzstructures if the patent is anything but a >>defensive patent to keep gorillas from patenting it. > > The short answer is, I have no idea what's going to be done with the patent, > because I will probably need to sell it. > > If anyone wants the long answer I'll post it. > > Best, Ted N. Ted, I'd certainly like that answer, long or short, as I have no intention of developing anything publicly that puts me at the end of a patent lawsuit. I've got all sorts of ideas about hypertext that are informed by its long history, and knowing how these ideas relate to existing patents, and in how those patents are expected to play out legally, is of vital importance to whether or not myself or others will proceed. If you plan to sell it, and let's say, uh, Microsoft buys it (with their deep pockets), that could very well lock up further investigation into the field, except by those willing to take on a team of lawyers. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 04:37:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8AB5956FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13301.mail.yahoo.com (web13301.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.37]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED0E056FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020521115321.5451.qmail@web13301.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:53:21 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 04:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >- Since we've had the "I think it should be GPL" >statement from > Doug, go ahead an put up an anonymous CVS server on > lab.bootstrap.org, or somewhere similar, assign a > CVS keeper (Eugene?), and starting diddling. Amen. I would suggest to request a project on the savannah.gnu.org project server. You can track tasks, bugs, ideas, cvs and all of that. It would provide a good framework for intergration into a OHS system. You need to work out a xref system, but all the articles are stored in a database, user account are handled, and the future intergration of PHP groupware will make a big difference. What I am saying is that savannah might provide a foundation for the OHS in terms of code, and that it could provide a host for the project. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 04:46:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6F00D56FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1854056FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020521120258.34657.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 05:02:58 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 05:02:58 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEA1E59.4976DE8C@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org As I might have said before, I am interesting in creating some form of repository of program code, but converted into a OHS type system. Specifically the gcc code because of the mass of available public information and it's inherit ability to bootstrap itself is quite interesting. This would give the ability to access, xref and annotate the sourcecode of a project. To tie in the cvs logs, mailling lists and documentation into one huge hypertext repository. We would have to be able to import and index many different types of information. Even coredumps provide information about what types of errors occur in what functions. Given this mass of information, a browser would be great the tools to visualize and query are needed. > for an OHS to operate on, Fleabyte is being > developed to become a > _dynamic_ knowledge repository to be worked on (i.e. > substance brought > closer to the frontiers) by means of an OHS. Can you provide some links on this? > its boundaries of interest. A challenge for the > relevant OHS is how to > select and allow parties - democratically! - to > shape the content, Well one idea that I like is that of the freenet, pages not used just die off. The data is replicated across a P2P net as needed. Everyone contributes bandwith as they see fit. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 08:37:59 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6A05556FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts23.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.185]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CCA2D56FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.185]) by tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020521155411.ZWWL8551.tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:54:11 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEA6E28.F962E6FF@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:56:25 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS and the futureof journalism (was "Bootstrap and Licensing") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mike. First, please, take a deep breath. This is long. You wrote, "As I might have said before, I am interesting in creating some form of repository of program code, but converted into a OHS type system," etc. I understand, and here I just jump into an ongoing debate with an altogether different kind of repository. Ofv on a tangent. Not too well behaved. But you were gracious enough not to ignore what I wrote. You asked if I could provide some links to my statement that "for an OHS to operate on, Fleabyte is being developed to become a _dynamic_ knowledge repository to be worked on (i.e. substance brought closer to the frontiers) by means of an OHS." I am not sure how to ansewer this satisfactorily. The genesis of my remark lies in my attending the Unrev-II Colloquium over the Internet. In that respect. perhaps the closest link I can give is to Session 2 of that 10-week series: http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/session_02/session_02-.html . But it may not be satisfactory. So, I'll try to explain what has been going through my mind and hope it will be sufficiently interesting. But before I do that let me quickly react to your comment re freenet, "pages not used just die off. The data is replicated across a P2P net as needed. Everyone contributes bandwith as they see fit." Many feel that all information should be retained; others may see that as a useless burden. Kind of compares to a habit many of us have, giving away books or other things and later finding out that, geez, wish I had kept that! Frequency of current use is a poor arbiter of future needs. Of course, there is stuff that has become so "obviously" redundant, one may well cull it out. Fleabyte played with a sort of informational netherworld referred to as dandruff (the "scurf of the scalp") to be kept for a year before brushing it away. But a better solution may be found in improving our way of journaling information. I.o.w., keep all the files (somewhere), but design a mode of finding most efficiently what is mostoften needed. Now back to "the frontiers." And here you probably are not getting the kind of response you may be expecting. Not even in the ballpark. The crux here is: we need to recognize different kinds of frontiers. One kind of frontier that between all human knowledge and what lies beyond. The other is between what a developing individual knows and what lies beyond. Still another - vary vague - is between what ordinary, "informed" citizens know and what lies beyond. And, of course, there is the kind of frontier that companies and other organizations perceive in their planning, which is the kind of frontier Doug Engelbart has been mostly talking about during the Unrev-II Colloquium. And as far as everyday society goes, it looks like the third kind is of paramount importance. It is from how ordinary folk and their accepted leaders perceive things that action flows such as enabling schools to speed kids to their frontiers and enabling academics to push outward the frontiers of overall human knowledge. It is what the "informed" citizen knows that is an important determinant. Another important determinant is what companies know. Here, those in the know may be fewer in number, but they are capital-driven entrepeneurs and have a great deal of influence in academe (even in schools for kids!). I don't want to belabor the struggles ensuing from what citizens know (or simply feel) and what "vested interests" know. Insofar the dirty linen is washed in public, the media are full of that. And a look at the oped pages of our newspapers shows that the media are especially knowledgeable about politics - psychology in action. As for the rest, the media are a mixture of insight and ignorance. How often have I not heard academics berating journalists about their incompetence. An especially bad aspect of media, which is rapidly getting worse!, is that they need advertising income in order to provide their _very important_ service. And to get that income they need to create and keep a readership. The stream of vital information entering broad society is increasingly diluted by garbage whereas the flux of events on this planet call for increasingly detailed understanding on the part of citizenries around the world. We need to move out "ordinary" citizens' frontiers of knowledge. Or should I say "judgment"? Judgment derives from knowledge gathered in the course of our lives. We may not have acute knowledge of details, but we still judge. We may have false perceptions, but we still judge. Which applies to the man in the street, to the corporate executive and the politician, and to scientists fully in touch with the academic community. What is happening today is not only that good information gets corrupted with garbage, but that hard data accepted as correct are increasingly overwhelmed by newer findings. A scientific paper loses value faster than a new car once it is driven of the dealer's lot. Clearly, we must improve on the human state of awareness of what is going on in this world. We need media that thrive to be accurate and eschew nonsense, and do so at a rate of informational flow and at a level that can be generally understood. Those media must be trustworthy; they cannot be suspected of being influenced by the advertising dollar, or any other vested interest. Let's be particular for a moment. In recent years there has been some litigation about so-called deep links. Linking directly to an item within a publisher's web site is resisted when it bypasses advertising. The publisher feels that he provides a service to reader and those he pay the piper by mixing ads with other content. Just imagine for a moment a professor interrupting his lecture for a word from the sponsor! Well, that would be the same obstacle to reaching a frontier as the media provide in their role as public educators. And imagine further that the professor mixes for entertainment purposes nonsensical or irrelevant stories with facts, just assuming that his students know the difference. That would be unheard of. Yet, that is the way the public is dealt with by the media. And, as I already implied, the frontiers of public understanding are more important than the frontiers of what academics understand because it is from public understanding that academe exists. I don't want to sound megalomaniacal (I am painfully aware of many of my limitations), but Fleabyte is an attempt at upgrading media; just a first stab, mind you. And as I am playing with it I become aware of difficulties, of contradictions, of things that need to be resolved, all this while not having answers at the ready. One thing it obviously needs is input by people well-placed to provide that and with the judgment to provide that in an appropriate measure. These are the kind of people we need to staff the frontiers of "common understanding" on which our actions as voters are based. We also need a mechanism by which these people can contribute and by which they can be held accountable for their contributions (as in debate). A mechanism on the public forum. It is that kind of mechanism I am looking for in an open hyperdocument system. I have been longwinded (and, yet, not detailed enough), but this is what I am talking about when in one sentence mentioning frontier outposts and OHS. In conclusion, please remember: pushing the frontiers of knowledge as we ordinarily understand it (mostly by researchers) is very important, but pushing the frontiers of public understanding is vital! This is where, I perceive, educational journalism must assert its responsibility. Henry From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 09:29:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E401E56FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.centralhouse.net (unknown [208.229.102.213]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1A4656FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ncarroll (unverified [208.229.102.84]) by mail.centralhouse.net (Vircom SMTPRS 5.0.194) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:49:14 -0700 Message-ID: <002b01c200e6$695d5e80$5466e5d0@ncarroll> From: "N. Carroll" To: References: <002301c20082$958ba2a0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:41:31 -0700 Organization: Hastings Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Mei Lin Fung To: Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:47 PM Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing [snip] > Doug's keynote at the World Library Summit is pulling the Bootstrap > Alliance into the 21st century library community as a place that is > particularly receptive to his ideas. > > Mei Lin Is the text of Doug's keynote available online? Nicholas -- ________________________________ Nicholas Carroll ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com Travel: ncarroll1000@yahoo.com http://www.hastingsresearch.com ________________________________ "The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build." -- Frederick Brooks From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 10:03:32 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 805A056FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0117356FF4 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-11206tu.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.27.190] helo=D9KP0711) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17ADIM-0005C6-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:19:34 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 02:42:23 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <000801c200ab$d25245d0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002b01c200e6$695d5e80$5466e5d0@ncarroll> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Yes, Henry van Eyken has kindly posted the address in fleabyte. This post is a long answer to your question, please accept my apologies in advance. Some have told me that few know the outcome of the Singapore trip made by Doug. One of the reasons is that discussions are still underway. However there is a lot that is already publicly posted, so I will take this opportunity to give the links again and a little background on Singapore. A. April 27, 2002 Improving our ability to improve: A call for investment in a new future Keynote address, World Library Summit, April 23 - 26, 2002, Singapore by Douglas C. Engelbart, The Bootstrap Alliance Summary. In the past fifty years we have seen enormous growth in computing capability - computing is everywhere and has impacted nearly everything. In this talk, Dr. Douglas Engelbart, who pioneered much of what we now take for granted as interactive computing, examines the forces that have shaped this growth. He argues that our criteria for investment in innovation are, in fact, short-sighted and focused on the wrong things. He proposes, instead, investment in an improvement infrastructure that can result in sustained, radical innovation capable of changing computing and expanding the kinds of problems that we can address through computing. In this talk, Dr. Engelbart describes both the processes that we need to put in place and the capabilities that we must support in order to stimulate this higher rate of innovation. The talk closes with a call to action for this World Library Summit audience, since this is a group that has both a stake in innovation and the ability to shape its direction. http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-11.html B. A trip report with a day by day, person met by person met, account written by yours truly, may be found at: (about 1 page of text per day) http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-9.html The trip report is found mid-way down this URL, at the April 22 posting. April 22, 2002 Email from Singapore, where Doug Engelbart and friends are attending the World Library Summit, "Global Knowledge Renaissance" C. Just a few words about Singapore and its relevance to Doug and Doug's relevance to them. Singapore has just under 4 million people living in on an island slightly larger than the size of Lake Tahoe. These extracts are from the remarks at 2 speeches by the US Ambassador to Singapore: http://www.usembassysingapore.org.sg/biodata/lavinstatement.html Statement of Franklin L. Lavin U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate July 25, 2001 "the U.S. has substantial trade and commercial interests in Singapore, our tenth largest trading partner. Singapore is also the busiest port and the fifth largest financial market in the world" http://www.usembassysingapore.org.sg/press/sp02mar22.html March 22, 2002 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: Taking Singapore Higher by Ambassador Lavin "Intellectual property rights are a third area. I know Singapore is a firm believer in the importance of generating a knowledge-based economy. Minister for Education RADM Teo said in a recent speech that Singapore wants to generate new sources of revenue from technologies, products and services coming out of Singapore. IPR protection will help that process. But while intellectual capital can be a tremendous growth engine, it needs the right environment. Singapore has made impressive strides but it falls short of being world-class in some areas. For example, it is not a crime for businesses to use unlicensed software. Nor is it a crime to export or transship pirated products. The FTA offers an opportunity for Singapore to create one of the best venues in the world for innovation and creativity. Singapore should be a global I.T. center, but this is more likely to happen if Singapore adopts IPR best practices." MLF: There is increasing understanding in Singapore that to be a knowledge based economy, there is no avoiding tacking the rules of the digital road. It would be a good result if Doug's principles informed the foundations of their thinking in this area. D. There is a talk on Innovation that he gave as the judge of the National Infocomm Innovation awards that might be of interest, for folks to see the impact Doug made in Singapore. http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-10.html April 23 2002 Thoughts on Innovation Speech at a gala dinner for recipients of Singapore's National Infocomm awards by Dr. Douglas C. Engelbart 2A - delivered to about 2500 people, the top movers and shakers in Singapore public and private IT, CEO's, CTO's etc. When I agreed to be a judge for the National Infocomm Awards in Singapore, quite honestly I didn't know what I was letting myself in for. When the boxes of paper started arriving in multiple DHL packages in California, describing a lot of different interesting, innovative projects, I thought, "oh oh, how ever am I going to be able to evaluate these people? How can I do the job I want to as a judge when I have no idea how innovative these products are in the US? Much less in Asia?" 2A1 Well, I was assured "just do your best!" When someone tells me that, I know exactly what to do: I always do my best when I augment what I know and what I can do with the knowledge and expertise of others. I recruited one of the best guys I knew for being networked amongst the top people in the US technology community...... -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of N. Carroll Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 AM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing ----- Original Message ----- From: Mei Lin Fung To: Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:47 PM Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing [snip] > Doug's keynote at the World Library Summit is pulling the Bootstrap > Alliance into the 21st century library community as a place that is > particularly receptive to his ideas. > > Mei Lin Is the text of Doug's keynote available online? Nicholas -- ________________________________ Nicholas Carroll ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com Travel: ncarroll1000@yahoo.com http://www.hastingsresearch.com ________________________________ "The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build." -- Frederick Brooks From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 10:31:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8317A56FF7; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.centralhouse.net (unknown [208.229.102.213]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DF8556FF5 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ncarroll (unverified [208.229.102.7]) by mail.centralhouse.net (Vircom SMTPRS 5.0.194) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:51:17 -0700 Message-ID: <001501c200ef$138a2700$0766e5d0@ncarroll> From: "N. Carroll" To: References: <000801c200ab$d25245d0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 10:42:51 -0700 Organization: Hastings Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Mei Lin Fung To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:42 AM Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing > Yes, Henry van Eyken has kindly posted the address in fleabyte. > This post is a long answer to your question, please accept my apologies Not too long at all. Thanks for posting, and to Henry likewise. N. -- ________________________________ Nicholas Carroll ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com Travel: ncarroll1000@yahoo.com http://www.hastingsresearch.com ________________________________ "The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build." -- Frederick Brooks From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 10:32:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BDB9056FF8; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.74]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3AD356FF7 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.129]) by tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020521174911.MTRH2077.tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:49:11 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEA891C.C6482C35@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:51:25 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <002301c20082$958ba2a0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> <002b01c200e6$695d5e80$5466e5d0@ncarroll> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Yes, Nicholas: http://www.fleabyte.org/index.html#rf-x Best, Henry "N. Carroll" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mei Lin Fung > To: > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:47 PM > Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing > > [snip] > > > Doug's keynote at the World Library Summit is pulling the Bootstrap > > Alliance into the 21st century library community as a place that is > > particularly receptive to his ideas. > > > > Mei Lin > > Is the text of Doug's keynote available online? > > Nicholas > > -- > ________________________________ > Nicholas Carroll > ncarroll@hastingsresearch.com > Travel: ncarroll1000@yahoo.com > http://www.hastingsresearch.com > ________________________________ > "The hardest single part of building a software system > is deciding precisely what to build." -- Frederick Brooks From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 14:08:04 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8EE7156FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C45556FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-210-133.oak.jps.net ([209.239.210.133] helo=netzero.net) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17AH79-0006pf-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:24:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3CEABB0B.14745D1@netzero.net> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:24:28 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <002301c20082$958ba2a0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Notice that some of our BA interests with UC Berkeley's Multivalent Browser and the University of Kentucky's Digital Atheneum Project are shown on the photo gallery link. < http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/photo.html > * Image Retrieval by Image by Content.including Blobworld demo: Image retrieval by image regions < http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/vision.html > < http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/photos/blobworld/> * GIS Viewer 4.0 "It has many applications, from locating, annotating, and sharing information about interesting features of the large geographic data sets, to presenting geopositioned data sets in useful contexts, to allowing users to pan and zoom museum image collections. " < http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/gis/index.html> * University of Kentucky's Digital Atheneum Project < http://www.digitalatheneum.org > "Resources for Image-based Humanities Computing" < http://www.rch.uky.edu/~mgk/looksee/ > Mei Lin Fung wrote: > One would start by examining the site http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ > > There have been two digital library initiatives so far, jointly funded > by NSF, DARPA and NASA where they have pooled their money in funding the > > "next wave of the web". NSF is the lead on this. > > Both have been fully allocated and are now closed. > > No new initiative has been announced yet. We are working on keeping > track of any new initiative. > > Doug's keynote at the World Library Summit is pulling the Bootstrap > Alliance into the 21st century library community as a place that is > particularly receptive to his ideas. > > Mei Lin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of > cdent@burningchrome.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:42 AM > To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing > > Presumably there's piles of grant money out there for this sort > of thing? Has that avenue been investigated? If not, where would > one start? > > The NSF is funding a great deal of digital libraries research. An > OHS has the potential to do for digital libraries what digital > libraries may do for physical libraries... > > On Mon, 20 May 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > Actually, I have nothing to sell, and am not planning on selling > > anything. > > > > My arguments have always been predicated on the problem of > > funding people to build a thing that needs building. How do you > > do that? That's the only problem I have attempted to solve. > > > > That entire proposition has been a non-starter, however. It > > emerged still-born. The other avenue is GPL. I hope it succeeds, > > and that the obstacles to it are removed. > > -- > Chris Dent > http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ > "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" > -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 14:11:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2702356FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13302.mail.yahoo.com (web13302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC58456FF4 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020521212803.45483.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.229.208] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:28:03 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:28:03 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS and the futureof journalism (was "Bootstrap and Licensing") To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEA6E28.F962E6FF@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Henry, You have made some interesting points. Here are some feedback on your statments. Please excuse my tendancy to bring everything back to my pet topics, I hope I dont lose you. I would write a longer response and handle more points, but I have to run. Comments follow. mike > I understand, and here I just jump into an ongoing > debate with an > altogether different kind of repository. Ofv on a > tangent. Not too well > behaved. But you were gracious enough not to ignore > what I wrote. I brought up my bit because I thought it could be releated as one type of knowledge. >>http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/session_02/session_02-.html Broken, http://www.bootstrap.org/colloquium/session_02/session_02.jsp > Many feel that all information should be retained; > others may see that > as a useless burden. Ok, that would mean that it should be stored somewhere, but accessed slower then what is on the current train of thought. That would be an archiver/reaper extension to the freenet. > may well cull it out. Fleabyte played with a sort of > informational > netherworld referred to as dandruff (the "scurf of > the scalp") to be > kept for a year before brushing it away. But a Thats why I brought up the cvs logs, they are lost information, but great sources for learning about the code. > better solution may be > found in improving our way of journaling > information. I.o.w., keep all > the files (somewhere), but design a mode of finding > most efficiently > what is mostoften needed. like cvs. > One kind of frontier that between all human > knowledge and what lies > beyond. The other is between what a developing > individual knows and what > lies beyond. Sure, like in a program, the functions names and signatures and thier contents. The function name is the id of the frontier the border, and the implementation is the unknown, the hidden. Each module is a new frontier, each application, each with its residents. >Still another - vary vague - is between > what ordinary, > "informed" citizens know and what lies beyond. IE: Some citizens of GCC know more than others. > Another important determinant is what companies > know. But also any organisation, group or collective... > Judgment derives from knowledge gathered in the > course of our lives. We > may not have acute knowledge of details, but we > still judge. We may have > false perceptions, but we still judge. Which > applies to the man in the > street, to the corporate executive and the > politician, and to scientists > fully in touch with the academic community. What is > happening today is > not only that good information gets corrupted with > garbage, but that > hard data accepted as correct are increasingly > overwhelmed by newer > findings. >A scientific paper loses value faster than > a new car once it > is driven of the dealer's lot. Have you seen http://researchindex.com Great stuff. >Clearly, we must > improve on the human > state of awareness of what is going on in this > world. That is one of the goals of the introspector project. >We need media that > thrive to be accurate and eschew nonsense, and do so > at a rate of > informational flow and at a level that can be > generally understood. A new medium as well. > Those media must be trustworthy; they cannot be > suspected of being > influenced by the advertising dollar, or any other > vested interest. Like the 4 pages of Microsoft .NET add following the 1/16 page article about the antitrust campain in the new york times? Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 15:42:56 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 16DE556FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13302.mail.yahoo.com (web13302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E06556FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020521225912.62169.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.225.41] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:59:12 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 15:59:12 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap, GNU, and the introspector To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Cc: rms@gnu.org, yves In-Reply-To: <3CEA891C.C6482C35@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Henry, Very impressed by the flea-byte. I reminds me of a blogger with a real well thought out structure. OHS and the bootstrap project Also the bootstrap alliance has a great update on the web page. Very well done. Henry, Richard, Yves and Everyone else, I am writing down all my ideas from my discussions in the past couple of day so that you might get a handle on what I have been thinking. This is an attempt to finally put down in writing the philosophical backdrop on the introspector project in such a way that they are put into context, maybe a blip on your intellectual radar screens. After hour long discussions about flows of concepts and simplification and communcation of ideas with yves today, I am ready to play connect the dots on a large scale. Lots of analogies and descriptions. You are all very professional writers, ones who write to words last to last. Most of what I write is stream of consciousness, and my streams are not unlike a turbulent water that flows through an underground river. Ok, Get out your SCUBA gear, because we are going for a trip on the yellow submarine. This could be a long journey, so pack a lunch and put on some sunglasses! I cannot help but to come back to my personal pet projects, it must be a form of contextual handicap that it is very difficult for each of us to grasp each others thoughts. Therefore I try an visit an idea of yours, and carry what I have gained from you back into the realm that I understand. It might come out in a spring at the bottom of the mountain, but it flows through the rocks like water in a pipe. That is the closest that I can come to the conceptualization of my own thoughts in my mind. At some point they become opaque. This is the limit of the introspection, the unconsiousness. That opaqueness it the border, the frontier, as I have understood it from your description Henry. So we have many frontiers, my internal model of my mind (the introspector) my model of your communication (the meaning of message) the message itself (the symbols and the representation) Of course your model of the communication and model of the mind. We are all coming from different frontiers, outposts as you might call them. I have been mapping out the cyberspace of the GNU data types. There are many different programs, each to solve one problem or the other. Each program is a meditation on one type of phenomenon, each having many supporting aspects that have measurements of different types of data. If we imagine the compile time representation of the entire free software construct, and then how it is being modified by a journaling file system with replication between each other (savannah.gnu.org) and each publishing modules (www.freshmeat.net) and the modules interacting in new and complex ways, then we come close to the view that there is no execution of the programs. The time stops on a point, we look at all the data statically, and this represents our universal frontier, the global introspection of all the minds of the programmers and that representation that is programmed into code. Now here we see a message that is meant for two people, other programmers who want to be able to understand the context and the message of the code written and the compiler implementor who wants to transform the code into a form that the chip designer can optimize into a form that the electrical engineer can optimize into a form that the chemist can optimize into form that the physicist can optimize into something that can be solved using mathematical symbols that can be manipulated by a computer and ran by a computer. So we see that the boostrap closes circle for one person, each communicating with others each releasing new bits an bobs until an entire system is built. These are the frontiers of management, economics, and other sciences. Each has thier own set of formulas, each formula has programs that implement it, and if we continue on this path, we trace the algorithm to the babylonians that tried to create functions to calculate area and volume, even record the stars. The clay tablets were the first hypertext, each persons own tablets might contain references to other peoples tablets using names or symbols as references. If we then continue on to include all of the data types that is held by all of the applications in memory, then we get the superset of all the the introspection about all of the know things in the frontier. Now if we include all the references to these types, refs to names and fields, to functions and structs, and link in all the documents that use these identifiers even in snippets, then we get the programmatic context of these data types. This represents the verbal legend of the code. What stories are told to neophytes when ask what a tree_node is in the gcc is not the type_decl (declaration), but the context of the type declaration, the story behind it, its purpose and its usage. Then you can build an abstract picture of the type in your head before you read the programming language representation that gives you the binding to that implementation. There is a great deal of code out there that can be documented this way, every code processing system can be taught by injection of an introspection patch (a quine like gödel numbering system ) that will allow a system to dump its internal representation into a graph like data structure, ideal for the cross referencing and the inclusion in a huge electronic repository. Any given GNU licensed program can be infected with such a virus, it is the GÖDEL theory with which he proved that any given system can be made self referential, thus causing an infinite feedback loop and destroying its perfect structure. That is what causes so much stress to the GPL because the users have to publish thier code and therefore can be attacked in such a way. On the positive side, this newly extroverted internal data becomes flea food on the back of the huge mammoth that represents the completely expanded OHS. In the end, the end users vote for the ability to escape from GNU, just to come back to it for protection of thier investment into the GNU symbol system. The well published and stable interfaces into the GNU/Linux system are a worth subject of study. Just a look at the http://tldp.org shows you a huge repository of well documented functions and user documentation. The purple numbering of the code, the emails and the cvs logs will provide an amazing learning experience for anyone who wants to contribute to the free software experience. This encoded into one language and interconnected would be a great task for the OHS. One has to think of the collective unconsciousness and the idea of archetypes when we consider such enormous entities. The idea of the great sea, the great mother and the nourishment are very achtypical symbols that I found on your web page Henry, in fact quite remarkable. It is interesting that such subconsious symbols surface to the top of the sea, floating towards the sunlight. This reminds me of the story of the Yellow Submarine in the ILLUMNATUS! trilogy of Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. They traveled through the great sea of the Unterwelt... This is what the browser of the OHS will be experiencing, an underwater swim in the vast collection mind, both the intentional and the unintentional. This represents the total and final frontier, the human mind. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 17:56:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5FB0456FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEB3056FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07221 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:13:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M1CwD03089 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEAF099.AB8A861D@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:12:58 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > ...the content of the system is not affected by > the license of the core code. You might want to > provide a LGPL lib to allow for the creation of custom > applications. > .... > So there are still many ways (both good and bad) for > creating non-free all-for-profit derived works using > an OHS. > > I hope that you found that interesting. I find it fascinating. There could be a whole range of companies geared up to solve specific problems, all using the underlying tecnology. Systems could be aimed at solving development problems, legal problems, financial problems, auto repair problems, ... the list goes on and on. I'd love to see something like that happen, with at least one service aimed at developers being totally free.... From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 17:59:49 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 96E7C56FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DBA556FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16425 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:16:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M1G1D03718 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEAF151.24A79818@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:16:01 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Doug Plug on NPR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org They were interviewing the folks at Wired this afternoon. Along the way, they were asked what they were doing 23 years ago and 35 years ago. As they were musing, they said, "Let's see was that '67? or '69? Hmmm. '69 was the Mother of All Demos. Douglas Englebart gave that in '69. Let's see, '67...." ...or words more or less to that effect. :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 18:11:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BBD1256FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E56856FF4 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18219 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:27:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M1RFD05331 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEAF3F2.3AEEFA48@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:27:15 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > ...Look at mp3.com > that uses linux/php/apache to run a non-free service. Interestingly, the issue of funding the folks who develop the OHS tool set is still open. Here's why: * Foks who do for-profit fundiing won't be interested in funding the software that prospective competition can use to get into the business. * The outfit that uses the OHS, therefore, will depend for competetive advantage on the amount of data they have amassed, and the "snowball effect" derived from having a lot of users on board before any competition shows up. * That outfit's expenses will therefore need to be heavily devoted to amassing data, attracting users, and providing whatever services or facilities it needs to provide to keep them interested. Mp3.com may be good example of a funded, profitable company that uses open software. But I wonder: * How much time and effort they spend on improving the open source. * How profitable they are. * How much funding they were able to attract. (I ask these questions in all ignorance. The answers will help to determine how realistic a model this may be. However, even with the *best* answers, I think they would have found it impossible to attract any funding whatever, had their goal been to develop linux or apache in order to establish their business.) As we have observed in the past, open source tends to do well when it consists of incremental modifications to an existing system, but not for developing new systems. I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the chicken and egg problem: We don't have the online collaboration tools we need to collaborate remotely on the design of an online remote collaboration system! Existing messaging systems support high level thinking and strategizing like this, but they quickly bog down when we attempt to sort out the details. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 18:26:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5E0AF56FF8; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from post2.inre.asu.edu (post2.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 076CA56FF5 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion.post2.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) id <0GWH00F01ORHL2@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:42:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from mainex1.asu.edu (mainex1.asu.edu [129.219.10.200]) by asu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #40111) with ESMTP id <0GWH00CIZORHJK@asu.edu> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:42:53 -0700 (MST) Received: by mainex1.asu.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:42:53 -0700 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:42:52 -0700 From: Michael Crusoe Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: "'ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Q9KT/Vc8jdRgic2LmzQimQ)" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_Q9KT/Vc8jdRgic2LmzQimQ) Content-type: text/plain > From: Eric Armstrong [mailto:eric.armstrong@sun.com] > As we have observed in the past, open source tends to > do well when it consists of incremental modifications to > an existing system, but not for developing new systems. I suspect that the creation of any significantly new and different system requires great effort and co-operation. I don't think closed-source/non-free systems have any unique advantage. Software (or any other type of rule set) created at an industry or larger organizational level requires great organizational skills, in my opinion. The open-source/free-software movement has several great victories and many small failures. I think this is true also of the traditional software production paradigms (witness the tragedy of UNIX). Granted we all could do a better job organizing ourselves, but isn't that the point? > I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the chicken and > egg problem: We don't have the online collaboration tools > we need to collaborate remotely on the design of an > online remote collaboration system! Agreed! So we have to take small steps -- or radical new ones. > Existing messaging systems support high level thinking and > strategizing like this, but they quickly bog down when we > attempt to sort out the details. But it's not impossible. None of this is impossible. I consider the lack of a systems-sized OHS/DKR to be the software industry's biggest failure, and I am embarrassed by it's absence. -- Michael Crusoe Student at large --Boundary_(ID_Q9KT/Vc8jdRgic2LmzQimQ) Content-type: text/html Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing

> From: Eric Armstrong [mailto:eric.armstrong@sun.com= ]

<snip>

> As we have observed in the past, open source = tends to
> do well when it consists of incremental = modifications to
> an existing system, but not for developing new = systems.

I suspect that the creation of any significantly new = and different system requires great effort and co-operation. I don't = think closed-source/non-free systems have any unique advantage. = Software (or any other type of rule set) created at an industry or = larger organizational level requires great organizational skills, in my = opinion.

The open-source/free-software movement has several = great victories and many small failures. I think this is true also of = the traditional software production paradigms (witness the tragedy of = UNIX). Granted we all could do a better job organizing ourselves, but = isn't that the point?

> I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the = chicken and
> egg problem: We don't have the online = collaboration tools
> we need to collaborate remotely on the design = of an
> online remote collaboration system!

Agreed! So we have to take small steps -- or radical = new ones.
 
> Existing messaging systems support high level = thinking and
> strategizing like this, but they quickly bog = down when we
> attempt to sort out the details.

But it's not impossible. None of this is impossible. = I consider the lack of a systems-sized OHS/DKR to be the software = industry's biggest failure, and I am embarrassed by it's = absence.

--
Michael Crusoe
Student at large

= --Boundary_(ID_Q9KT/Vc8jdRgic2LmzQimQ)-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 18:34:26 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 980AE56FF9; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3329756FF8 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20799 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M1odD10110 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEAF96F.7B775B3F@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:50:39 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > - I'm with Mike: given a pocket-guide spec I could and would > code. I'd love to see one, too. The question "What is this thing, anyway" has been asked repeatedly (mostly in meetings). The answers have been uniform only in respect of being a vision that is unique to the person responding. It is, in fact, a "wicked problem". There is insufficient agreement about what the nature of the problem is to begin a focused discussion on solutions. I tend to focus on "collaboration" as the primary goal. But no sooner do I utter that vision, than Rod or someone else (equally rightly!) notes that "knowledge" is the important point. The discussions have gone on at length, and we even tried to take an IBIS approach, at one point. Being insufficiently versed in the technique, however, and lacking any useful tools to expedite the process, that effort aborted rather quickly. > .... > there is no consistent or clear vision of what > is being attempted here, no leadership, no milestones and very > little code. There are developers here and presentations of the > things they are developing, but they aren't integrated into a > starting point of any sort. Guilty on all counts. > ...the literature is so focussed on (the human-centered) > aspect that little time is spent on questions such as "what > are we trying to accomplish? what tasks are we attempting to > augment or automate? why? how? is it necessary?" These are the right questions to ask. In my next message, I will begin a discussion of that very question. Please watch closely to see how the discussion ensues. > ...Others have suggested that we > focus on a particular use case (Jack has mentioned education, I > think this is still too abstract); something like that may give us > a place to hang something. I'm not sure. > > I've hesitated to say anything before now because I did not feel > it was appropriate. Perhaps that's the key: there's a strong > sense of insidership here, without much mentoring. I've been > around long enough now to realize this is not intentional but it > still represents a strong barrier to participation. I'm sorry to hear that. Your thoughts are always well-considered, valued, and constructive. I'm not sure what we can do to make it more inviting. In fact, I note that is an extremely civil list, compared to the norm. That said, I have heard some "old timers" privately expressing their grief that issues we discussed at length several years ago, and reasoned carefully about, are constantly reopened. That was a large part of the reason for wanting to purplize the archives, so we could put together a consistent body of answers for such things, and simply refer people to lines of thought that had already been considered. (This notion represents what is possibly the 3rd main stream of "what it is we're trying to accomplish, making: 1. Online collobaration 2. Knowledge base 3. Accessing the huge volume of thoughts we've accumulated in the archive. > We are, however, past the golden age of software volunteerism or > nearing the end (to my eye the OpenSource(TM) movement killed it. Interesting. I would like to hear your views on it. As you and others have observed, though, the "open source" movement is in many ways an activity that is funded by folks who have other ways to derive income from the results (such as selling hardware). > ...having a cool idea > and enough cool code to show to potential helpers is no longer > enough. There needs to be organization, focus, leadership, goals, > distribution of tasks, etc etc etc. Infrastructure. Yes. In other words, someone with enough time on their hands, and a mandate. Any mandate that exists on this list must come from the Doug. > - Create a ba-ohs-devel list where specifications and code can be > discussed in a focussed fashion, Actually, that's what ba-ohs-talk was originally designed for. The wider discussions go to ba-unrev-talk, where issues of energy, food, and what not are discussed. I guess the licensing issue belongs here, though. I sure hope it's settled sometime in this millenium. Again, thank you for your very real contributions, and please don't hesitate to post. :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 19:03:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id EDB8F56FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82C0C56FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29101 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M2JZD14512 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEB0037.32BB9289@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:19:35 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org What is it that we are trying do? What problems are we attempting to solve? Are we building: * An online design/discussion tool. * A shared knowledge base * A categorizable archive of requirements and design concepts * A database manager with rich linking and categorizing that can serve as a foundation * Something else entirely. * All of the above. * Some of the above + some delta ??? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 19:26:27 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 28EE556FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95B1756FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12881 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 20:43:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4M2geD17221 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEB05A0.BD75DBEF@sun.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:42:40 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <3CEB0037.32BB9289@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [Alternative] In reply to the question posted above, I offer the following alternative: An online design/discussion tool My reasoning is this: We face the chicken and egg problem where we don't have the tools we need to carry productive discussions remotely about the tools we need to build. In the best tradition of bootstrapping, then, we should focus on that issue, and use the results of that effort to improve our ability to build the next generation system. Aspects of that system include IBIS-style categorization of messages (or paragraphs), hierarchically-structured text, typed links, and the ability to hoist a lower-level response to an upper level. For example, when in the discussion of a wicked problem, a good summary is adduced way down in the depths of the tree, that node should be hoisted to the top, with everything that led to it "hanging off it", as background information. If the root of the tree is, "What problem are we trying to solve?", then the each alternative offered should appear as an entry under that question. For each alternative, the question, "how can we do that" is implicit. Suggestions for ways and means and do so can then be listed under the relevant alternative. At some point (and here the process gets both nebulous and rocky) a *decision* has to be made. That is where the problems start. The request for a "clear vision and a strong leader" is, in effect, a way of saying, "we need to put someone in charge of making some decisions, so we can get off square one". Other alternatives for decision making including voting systems, and "rated evaluations", where an alternative eventually snowballs to victory based on the strength of the evaluations and the reputations of the people giving them. (So when 3 very respected people give proposition X a "+5", I'm inclined to go along for the ride!) Personally, I think that rated evaluations make a lot of sense. But we need tools to structure the decision and sort things according to their ratings so the cream rises to the top, where it is on screen. There's my vision. Before we rush to make a specification for it, though, let's see who else responds, and what they have to say. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 22:58:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1BC5056FF3; Tue, 21 May 2002 22:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D74156FF2 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 22:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020522061420.93436.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.224.102] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:14:20 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 23:14:20 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEAF3F2.3AEEFA48@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric, See my comments below. Mike > * Foks who do for-profit fundiing won't be > interested in > funding the software that prospective competition > can > use to get into the business. That is a general problem. > > * The outfit that uses the OHS, therefore, will > depend for > competetive advantage on the amount of data they > have > amassed, and the "snowball effect" derived from > having > a lot of users on board before any competition > shows up. By the value of thier content, and the services they provide. It is a company that uses it internally? Or a project that uses it for documentation. Look at the www.doxygen.org, free software, used by many, everyone contributes bit and bobs. > > * That outfit's expenses will therefore need to be > heavily > devoted to amassing data, attracting users, and > providing whatever services or facilities it > needs to > provide to keep them interested. take a look a slashdot.net or perlmonks.org great sites that have many users, each with a niche of thier own. Both not possible without a certain bit of software. Bye the way, the perlmonks everything engine might be very interesting to you all.Also the slash engine is also Gpled. > > Mp3.com may be good example of a funded, profitable > company that uses open software. But I wonder: > * How much time and effort they spend on improving > the open source. How much time and effort does anyone spend on finding and fixing bugs in any software. I have spent the last 5 years in a RougeWave/Sybase/Microsoft client server world, and I have had less bugs and problems with free-software, better response times and spent less time tracking bugs. MP3.com was just an idea that jumped in my head. Here is an interesting article on the internet music market. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,48517,00.html > * How profitable they are. Here is an older statement. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-251294.html?legacy=cnet > * How much funding they were able to attract. I dont know exactly, the business realy depends on the model at hand. > > (I ask these questions in all ignorance. The answers > will > help to determine how realistic a model this may be. > However, even with the *best* answers, I think they > would have found it impossible to attract any > funding > whatever, had their goal been to develop linux or > apache > in order to establish their business.) Fine, and that is why apache and linux is a volunteer effort, look at codesourcery.com and redhat.com/cygnus.com they are the leading contributors to the gcc compiler. Apache has a foundation to organise efforts. > > As we have observed in the past, open source tends > to > do well when it consists of incremental > modifications to > an existing system, but not for developing new > systems. New systems are created out of need or experiment, and I disaggree, many new smaller projects are implemented. If you can piecemeal the project you will find people willing to contribute modules. > > I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the > chicken and > egg problem: We don't have the online collaboration > tools > we need to collaborate remotely on the design of an > online remote collaboration system! Wait, we do have them nowadays. We have tools like perlmonks,slashdot,savannah/sourceforge, blogger, we have protocols like cvs,irc,http. We have all types of collaboration tools. > Existing messaging systems support high level > thinking and > strategizing like this, but they quickly bog down > when we > attempt to sort out the details. You need a way to index, search, xref and reorg the data quickly. It is difficult. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 23:14:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4AEBB56FF4; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D938B56FF3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020522063031.94995.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.232.34] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:30:31 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 23:30:31 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEB0037.32BB9289@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric, my attempt at answering below. mike > What is it that we are trying do? We are now moving into the design stage of the problem. We are looking into functional areas of the problem and are going to try and blackbox them for creating an overview of the problem space. We should be creating some form of UML specs for the system, and annotating these specs in a form that can be used and linked to the OHS. We should be coming up with use-cases for our systems, class defining artifacts of these system, methods that are callable on the objects that are instances of the classes. Data flows datagrams of information flow between parts, Relational database models. All of these diagrams and schemas should be cross-linked back to defining requirements. > What problems are we attempting to solve? We are trying to come up with a system that allows for expansion and bootstrapping. Many of these tools existing in the free software universe, we should go shopping first. perl has a huge resource on similar tools that can be reused. Most of them are under a Perl Aristic Licence that is much more liberal than the GPL. > > Are we building: > * An online design/discussion tool. Yes, but we should start focusing on the design. > * A shared knowledge base As a side product. > * A categorizable archive of requirements > and design concepts Yes, we should capture the requirements and designs first. > * A database manager with rich linking and > categorizing that can serve as a foundation We should reuse what we can, but we still need an API. > * Some of the above + some delta I would say we need to have a diagramming tool that can plug in with hyperlinks, the touchgraph with more symbols. And we need to have an editor intergration to include emacs and other editors for editing code and files. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 21 23:17:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D1A9B56FF5; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF8F756FF4 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020522063357.6809.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.232.2] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:33:57 PDT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 23:33:57 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEB05A0.BD75DBEF@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Other alternatives for decision making including > voting > systems, and "rated evaluations", where an > alternative > eventually snowballs to victory based on the > strength > of the evaluations and the reputations of the people > giving them. (So when 3 very respected people give > proposition X a "+5", I'm inclined to go along for > the ride!) Take a look at perlmonks.org it has great voting and review system and has lots of high quality content and a dedicated user community. It is also "open source" and can be reused for what it is worth. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 10:12:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 01B5656FF4; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A13D756FF3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl-63-201-92-166.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.201.92.166]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GWI00LWFWKACI@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:27:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Eugene Eric Kim Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing In-reply-to: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> X-X-Sender: eekim@hugh.burdenslanding.org To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On Mon, 20 May 2002, James Michael DuPont wrote: > 4. The hypertext and webservices world is not really > covered by the GPL v2. There is no way to stop a user > from using http to access all of your data and create > a derived product without linking and without > permission. I just wrote about this very topic for Sourceforge's Distributed Computing Foundry: http://distributed.foundries.sourceforge.net/article.pl?sid=02/05/21/2245226 -Eugene -- +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== eekim@eekim.com ===== http://www.eekim.com/ ===+ | "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they | +===== can have an excuse to drink alcohol." --Steve Martin ===========+ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 13:24:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7379356FF3; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28F8A56FF2 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-202-183.oak.jps.net ([209.239.202.183] helo=netzero.net) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17AcuN-0000hS-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:40:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3CEC023E.839A9E21@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:40:30 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEAF3F2.3AEEFA48@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Another interesting article about open source concerning Red Hat: Open Source: [Red Hat] the Next Dot Com Bubble Burst? < http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020429S0060 > "Look at the numbers. Red Hat has reported only a single year of profitability, in 1996 when the company made a half million dollars. Since then its losses have increased every year. In 2001 the company lost $87m on $81m in sales. The 2002 fiscal year was much worse, resulting in a loss of $140m on $79m in sales. The stock reached a high of $150/share in 2000 but lately hovers around $6." ... ... "The open-source business model is really fascinating. Lest one think it's an idealistic notion consider this quote from Red Hat's web site: "While it is true that Open Source software code is free, taking advantage of its benefits requires a significant investment." That sounds like a good business proposition, a nice way to make money from a free product. But the numbers, at least for the biggest of open source companies, suggest otherwise." ... Reader Feedback ... "In an alternative case of open source, there is Jean LaBrosse's uCOS operating system, which I have used successfully. I presume that LaBrosse is realizing a respectable profit from uCOS, although it comes from his classes, writings, and book sales, rather than from sale of the code itself. Embedded Linux vendors who manage to emulate LaBrosse's operations model, not just the open source business model, may be successful." ... Author's Comment "Can't wait to see the fanatical responses from the religous zealots grasping their sixties' "free-love" philosophies!!! Peace man! Groovy. Like, why doesn't socialism work man? Can you dig it?" Eric Armstrong wrote: > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > > ...Look at mp3.com > > that uses linux/php/apache to run a non-free service. > > Interestingly, the issue of funding the folks who develop > the OHS tool set is still open. Here's why: > > * Foks who do for-profit fundiing won't be interested in > funding the software that prospective competition can > use to get into the business. > > * The outfit that uses the OHS, therefore, will depend for > competetive advantage on the amount of data they have > amassed, and the "snowball effect" derived from having > a lot of users on board before any competition shows up. > > * That outfit's expenses will therefore need to be heavily > devoted to amassing data, attracting users, and > providing whatever services or facilities it needs to > provide to keep them interested. > > Mp3.com may be good example of a funded, profitable > company that uses open software. But I wonder: > * How much time and effort they spend on improving > the open source. > * How profitable they are. > * How much funding they were able to attract. > > (I ask these questions in all ignorance. The answers will > help to determine how realistic a model this may be. > However, even with the *best* answers, I think they > would have found it impossible to attract any funding > whatever, had their goal been to develop linux or apache > in order to establish their business.) > > As we have observed in the past, open source tends to > do well when it consists of incremental modifications to > an existing system, but not for developing new systems. > > I expect that is entirely do, once again, to the chicken and > egg problem: We don't have the online collaboration tools > we need to collaborate remotely on the design of an > online remote collaboration system! > > Existing messaging systems support high level thinking and > strategizing like this, but they quickly bog down when we > attempt to sort out the details. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 13:39:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B331F56FF4; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C4DD56FF3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06710 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4MKtJD22213 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEC05B9.DD5C2984@sun.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:55:21 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing References: <20020521054734.46255.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEAF3F2.3AEEFA48@sun.com> <3CEC023E.839A9E21@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org "John J. Deneen" wrote: > ... "The open-source business model is really fascinating. Lest one > think it's an idealistic notion consider this quote from Red Hat's web > site: "While it is true that Open Source software code is free, taking > advantage of its benefits requires a significant investment." That > sounds like a good business proposition, a nice way to make money from a > free product. > > But the numbers, at least for the biggest of open source companies, > suggest otherwise." ... Thanks, John. It's good to have data. I'm also intrigued by the notion Mike set forth, that people would contribute modules under a GPL license, if we had specifications for them -- if we had GPL. The options are: 1. Build a company around software that makes it possible to develop collaboration teams and KB's. Hope to make it as widespread a "platform" as windows or desktop computers. Sell the platform that people use to publish the information, or possibly to access it, the same way that spreadsheets, operating systems, and computers are sold. Let knowledge integrators and providers decide whether their services are free, or open only to registered users. 2. Build a GPL version of the software. Give it away the same way Mosaic was given away. Build momentum. Let companies spring forth in whatever way it was that propelled Netscape and Yahoo into existence. (Personally, I'm still trying to figure out their business model. There must be *some* kind of model.) Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a middle ground. I've yet to find any compromise position that is not uniformly hated by both those who fund commercial efforts, and those who contribute to open source efforts. There appears, therefore, to be a very clear demarcation -- a point of decision. I have endeavored to promote the former option for a couple of years, but have met with little success. I suspect that is therefore past time to give the 2nd option a try. It can do no worse. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 13:44:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 70A3356FF4; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07B5F56FF3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10019 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4ML0lD23434 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEC0701.8555AE12@sun.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:00:49 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <20020522063031.94995.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > I would say we need to have a diagramming tool that > can plug in with hyperlinks, the touchgraph with more > symbols. > And we need to have an editor intergration to include > emacs and other editors for editing code and files. Ah. Here is your view of what we are building. Note the huge discrepancy between this and what I described. Watch as others answer, as well. How does one "write specifications" when there is as yet no agreement over goals?? This is precisely the nature of wicked problems. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 14:22:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 18ABE56FF3; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D087856FF2 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020522213830.44721.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.230.171] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:38:30 PDT Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:38:30 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Bootstrap and Licensing To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Well put eugene. What about the ability to execute the code and extract the data? Gödel numbering and such. Does that violate linkage? Does that create a derived program if you are heavily dependant on the data from a program? mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 14:34:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4776A56FF3; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF11C56FF2 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020522215035.47090.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.230.171] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:50:35 PDT Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:50:35 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CEC0701.8555AE12@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > Ah. Here is your view of what we are building. > Note the huge discrepancy between this and what I > described. "Dammit Kirk, I am an engineer, not a doctor!" Damit, Eric, I am a hacker not a teacher. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 22 14:40:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3051A56FF4; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84BA756FF3 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11192 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4MLv8D05484 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEC1436.70175343@sun.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:57:10 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <20020522215035.47090.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: > > Ah. Here is your view of what we are building. > > Note the huge discrepancy between this and what I > > described. > > "Dammit Kirk, I am an engineer, not a doctor!" > > Damit, Eric, I am a hacker not a teacher. :_) Not to worry. It was just an exercise in explaining why we have no specifications. Multiply the difference between your vision and mine by the number of people in the room, and that's how many "OHS" designs we have. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 01:01:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0611556FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A9E956FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcaus6h.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.112.209] helo=D9KP0711) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Anme-0005M4-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:17:16 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] More on Digital Libraries Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:16:18 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <003e01c20232$20f06140$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org There is a key West Coast conference (national participants) in Portland, Oregon the web site is www.jcdl2002.org. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 03:20:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C043A56FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 082EA56FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 11:36:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3CECC610.4090902@open.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:36:00 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <20020522215035.47090.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEC1436.70175343@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Eric Armstrong wrote: > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > >>>Ah. Here is your view of what we are building. >>>Note the huge discrepancy between this and what I >>>described. >>> >>"Dammit Kirk, I am an engineer, not a doctor!" >> >>Damit, Eric, I am a hacker not a teacher. > > :_) > > Not to worry. It was just an exercise in explaining why > we have no specifications. > > Multiply the difference between your vision and mine by > the number of people in the room, and that's how many > "OHS" designs we have. This is why I'm not trying to develop an OHS, just some functional tools for authors. The "synthesis" that is occurring right now is happening at the code level, not the design level, such that I can fairly easily incorporate other projects (like XML parsers, HTML markup cleaners, node visualizers, etc.) into my project, as part of my design. The tools of developers and the means of sharing them have greatly improved over the past years, what with the advent of open development environments such as Java, Gnome, etc., open source [libraries], and now, open data [XML]. Problem is, we haven't learned how to cooperate at the design level in the same ways. We need an open design methodology that works in providing requirements handling, resource planning, legal council, a whole slew of things that individual developers don't have at their fingertips (and thank God don't need much either, otherwise we'd be stumped too). If we were all "renaissance men" we'd be able to do it all ourselves, be a teacher, a hacker, a lawyer, a project planner, whatever. What we can do as a group is allocate our talents appropriately, but as has been pointed out, resources are in short order when everything is on a volunteer basis. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 06:23:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BD6AF56FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from m5.andara.com (m5-real.eastlink.ca [24.222.0.25]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D70356FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (u116n213.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.116.213]) by m5.andara.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g4NDdU5S017987 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 10:39:31 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:39:25 -0300 Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) From: Mark Szpakowski To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3CECC610.4090902@open.ac.uk> Message-Id: <7F6F0603-6E52-11D6-B5A3-0003934E2EE6@well.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 07:36 AM, Murray Altheim wrote: > This is why I'm not trying to develop an OHS, just some functional > tools for authors. The "synthesis" that is occurring right now is > happening at the code level, not the design level, such that I can > fairly easily incorporate other projects (like XML parsers, HTML > markup cleaners, node visualizers, etc.) into my project, as part > of my design. Low-level lego bricks, but not robolab/mindstorms designs. I think that while positioning for larger syntheses and co-designs, working in a loosely coupled fashion, with hooks into identifiable nodes, will promote bottom-up interoperability. For example, if this mailing-list provides (ie, pushes at us) e-mail messages with purple numbers exposed, these purple numbers will serve as hooks into the identified and archived nodes (REST-visible). Our various tools, client-side to begin with, can then grab these and impose our own organizations on them. This seemed like something eekim and John Sechrest were working on: cf http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0203/msg00042.html#nid04: > * From: Eugene Eric Kim > * Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:15:56 -0800 (PST) > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, John Sechrest wrote: (01) > > > Please go into majordomo's config. > > And in it set the "Footer" to be a reference to the list: > > > > http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0203/dates.html (02) > > Good idea. (03) > > We can hack majordomo to include this information in an X- mail header > too. (04) > Cheers, Mark From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 06:52:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 04C7556FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44E6256FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 15:09:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3CECF7D3.2010904@open.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:08:19 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <7F6F0603-6E52-11D6-B5A3-0003934E2EE6@well.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mark Szpakowski wrote: > On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 07:36 AM, Murray Altheim wrote: > >> This is why I'm not trying to develop an OHS, just some functional >> tools for authors. The "synthesis" that is occurring right now is >> happening at the code level, not the design level, such that I can >> fairly easily incorporate other projects (like XML parsers, HTML >> markup cleaners, node visualizers, etc.) into my project, as part >> of my design. > > Low-level lego bricks, but not robolab/mindstorms designs. I think that > while positioning for larger syntheses and co-designs, working in a > loosely coupled fashion, with hooks into identifiable nodes, will > promote bottom-up interoperability. Yes, but if you've every played with Mindstorms or Robolab you'd know that it's a pretty poor system to work with, that the various hacker alternatives (leJOS, etc.) are enormously more powerful and hook the Lego RCX hardware into much more interesting and expandable development frameworks, such that you can even program them in higher level languages like Java and C (I wrote an editor for the latter in Java). The low level bricks are actually getting to be pretty high level bricks in their own right, witness xindice.jar, which provides an entire native XML database. The bottom-up interoperability happens across the various APIs being developed within each domain, such as SAX, DOM, XMLDB, etc. > For example, if this mailing-list provides (ie, pushes at us) e-mail > messages with purple numbers exposed, these purple numbers will serve as > hooks into the identified and archived nodes (REST-visible). Our various > tools, client-side to begin with, can then grab these and impose our own > organizations on them. > > This seemed like something eekim and John Sechrest were working on: cf > http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0203/msg00042.html#nid04: > >> * From: Eugene Eric Kim >> * Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:15:56 -0800 (PST) >> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, John Sechrest wrote: (01) >> >> > Please go into majordomo's config. >> > And in it set the "Footer" to be a reference to the list: >> > >> > http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0203/dates.html (02) >> >> Good idea. (03) >> >> We can hack majordomo to include this information in an X- mail header >> too. (04) Yes, each of these components adds into the pot another flavour, but we're still missing something along what you were referring to as a Mindstorms-level design methodology (though hopefully a much better and more flexible methodology than Mindstorms). That was really the problem with Mindstorms: not flexible enough, closed, and no API. A design methodology needs to solve those problems to succeed. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 13:30:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2EEEC56FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FBF556FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21839 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:46:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4NKkrD06176 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CED5541.42324CC5@sun.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:46:57 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <20020522215035.47090.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEC1436.70175343@sun.com> <3CECC610.4090902@open.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Murray Altheim wrote: > This is why I'm not trying to develop an OHS, just some functional > tools for authors. The "synthesis" that is occurring right now is > happening at the code level, not the design level, such that I can > fairly easily incorporate other projects (like XML parsers, HTML > markup cleaners, node visualizers, etc.) into my project, as part > of my design. ... > > Problem is, we haven't learned how to cooperate at the design level > in the same ways. We need an open design methodology that works in > providing requirements handling, resource planning, legal council.... Fascinating proposition. I believe in focusing on "developer productivity", because of the bootstrap effect that proposition allows. Are we talking component-reuse here, or is there more to this vision? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 17:14:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D7D7A56FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.liquidinformation.com (liquid.colo.hosteurope.com [217.199.168.209]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF54F56FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7319 invoked from network); 24 May 2002 00:30:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO liquidinformation.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa with SMTP; 24 May 2002 00:30:42 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:30:42 +0100 (BST) From: "Frode Hegland" Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, eric.armstrong@sun.com Cc: "Douglas Engelbart" Message-Id: <20020524001423.EF54F56FF2@bi0.bootstrap.org> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >Not to worry. It was just an exercise in explaining why >we have no specifications. > >Multiply the difference between your vision and mine by >the number of people in the room, and that's how many >"OHS" designs we have. Good timing with this one! I am taking my masters in HCI (University College London) and have managed to persuade the head of the department to let my main thesis/paper be on a Requirements Document for OHS. That is to say a Requirements Document as a way to move towards a full spec. This means editing all of your requirements after first interviewing Doug in a structured manner. But before we get moving on the actual requirements capture process I think it would be useful to get your perspective on how how you would like the requirements capture process to be carried out. Any specific preferences? You can follow the progress of this enterprise on http://cynapse.org (not directly named OHS for political reasons, I couldn't get my masters doing a straight forward Requirements Document for a 'company' so to speak. Cynapse is therefore a stand-in, but you'll notice a clear basic requirement is to fullfill all OHS requirements. Frode Hegland Liquid Information http://www.SpeakingAssistant.com http://www.LiquidInformation.com http://www.Liquid.org http://www.AppleBlunders.com http://www.Engelbart.info http://www.Cynapse.org UK: (44) 777 953 3856 US: (1) 877 239 1010 From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 17:16:31 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 130E056FF4; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6366156FF3 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.169.35]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020524003251.IXO14183.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 20:32:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3CED8ABF.8E6A15BD@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:35:11 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Augmentation of the third kind References: <20020522215035.47090.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEC1436.70175343@sun.com> <3CECC610.4090902@open.ac.uk> <3CED5541.42324CC5@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Let's refer to augmenting human capabilities with tools, from stone hammer through an OHS, as augmentation of just one kind. Then, we might refer to direct control of devices by human thought as augmentation of a second kind. Currently, we find ourselves entering an era of an exploding grasp and practice of an augmentation of the third kind: neurotechnological enhancement of mental capacity by electronics and by cogniceuticals: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1143317 And it is interesting to contemplate how augmentation of the human intellect by an increasingly intensive manipulation of symbols drawn from an expanding array can further compound neurotechnological augmentation. O, brother. See also: :http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1143583 Henry From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 17:40:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 496F156FF8; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DA4956FF4; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29991; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:56:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4O0utv18325; Thu, 23 May 2002 17:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CED8FDC.2F828028@sun.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:57:00 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frode Hegland Cc: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, Douglas Engelbart Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <200205240030.SAA28431@pheriche.sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Frode Hegland wrote: > Good timing with this one! > > I am taking my masters in HCI (University College London) and have > managed to persuade the head of the department to let my main > thesis/paper be on a Requirements Document for OHS. That is to say a > Requirements Document as a way to move towards a full spec. > > This means editing all of your requirements after first interviewing Doug > in a structured manner. > > But before we get moving on the actual requirements capture process I > think it would be useful to get your perspective on how how you would > like the requirements capture process to be carried out. Any specific > preferences? I think you're right to start out by interviewing Doug. Once you get the "big picture" clear, you can contact the rest of us to fill in the details. I look forward to seeing that "big picture". (It may be trickier to outline than you think.) :_) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 18:24:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B900C56FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.liquidinformation.com (liquid.colo.hosteurope.com [217.199.168.209]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2CAC56FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12432 invoked from network); 24 May 2002 01:40:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO liquidinformation.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa with SMTP; 24 May 2002 01:40:38 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 02:40:38 +0100 (BST) From: "Frode Hegland" Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: eric.armstrong@sun.com Cc: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, "Douglas Engelbart" Message-Id: <20020524012415.E2CAC56FF2@bi0.bootstrap.org> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >I think you're right to start out by interviewing Doug. >Once you get the "big picture" clear, you can contact the rest >of us to fill in the details. Absolutely. I'll be updating http://www.cynapse.org as I get structured information out of Doug. I will also be scouring the archives for previously written info about OHS from Doug and all of your guys. If there are any preferences as to how this should be done, please speak up. I will be trying to do this in a fairly traditional way, but the meaning of tradition varies just a bit with requirements capture. First issue is concentrating on the problem. What are we trying fo fix here? What kinds of things do we need to be able to do? What should we augment? What will have to be completely newly developed? What are the philosophical and political frameworks and views we should be focused by? And so on... Any comments parallel to Doug? >I look forward to seeing that "big picture". (It may be trickier >to outline than you think.) Don't I know it... :-) Frode Hegland Liquid Information http://www.SpeakingAssistant.com http://www.LiquidInformation.com http://www.Liquid.org http://www.AppleBlunders.com http://www.Engelbart.info http://www.Cynapse.org UK: (44) 777 953 3856 US: (1) 877 239 1010 From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 23:19:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8624556FF3; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13301.mail.yahoo.com (web13301.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.37]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08EB256FF2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020524063537.78281.qmail@web13301.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.224.56] by web13301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:35:37 PDT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:35:37 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, eric.armstrong@sun.com In-Reply-To: <20020524001423.EF54F56FF2@bi0.bootstrap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > I am taking my masters in HCI (University College > London) and have > managed to persuade the head of the department to > let my main > thesis/paper be on a Requirements Document for OHS. > That is to say a > Requirements Document as a way to move towards a > full spec. Congrats, this is good news! ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 23:24:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0302D56FF5; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13307.mail.yahoo.com (web13307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE4B256FF3 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.232.83] by web13307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:40:33 PDT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, eric.armstrong@sun.com Cc: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, Douglas Engelbart In-Reply-To: <20020524012415.E2CAC56FF2@bi0.bootstrap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Frode, > If there are any preferences as to how this should > be done, please speak > up. I will be trying to do this in a fairly > traditional way, but the > meaning of tradition varies just a bit with > requirements capture. > > First issue is concentrating on the problem. > > What kinds of things do we need to be able to do? > Yeah, that is a good starting point. from what I know about this problem, you will have to concentrate on capturing the basic use-cases of such a system. How it is to be used and interacted with. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 23 23:24:17 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D48DE56FFB; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13307.mail.yahoo.com (web13307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E953756FF4 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.232.83] by web13307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:40:33 PDT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, eric.armstrong@sun.com Cc: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, Douglas Engelbart In-Reply-To: <20020524012415.E2CAC56FF2@bi0.bootstrap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Frode, > If there are any preferences as to how this should > be done, please speak > up. I will be trying to do this in a fairly > traditional way, but the > meaning of tradition varies just a bit with > requirements capture. > > First issue is concentrating on the problem. > > What kinds of things do we need to be able to do? > Yeah, that is a good starting point. from what I know about this problem, you will have to concentrate on capturing the basic use-cases of such a system. How it is to be used and interacted with. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 24 11:09:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C660856FF3; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E88156FF2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.5] ([12.234.196.149]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020524182614.LLWD11426.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@[192.168.100.5]> for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 18:26:14 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jernst@mail.r-objects.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:26:16 -0400 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Johannes Ernst Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 23:40 -0700 2002/05/23, James Michael DuPont wrote: > > First issue is concentrating on the problem. >> >> What kinds of things do we need to be able to do? >> >Yeah, that is a good starting point. >from what I know about this problem, you will have to >concentrate on capturing the basic use-cases of such a >system. How it is to be used and interacted with. I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. Unless the specific (expected) benefits for specific tasks by specific user classes are identified, it's unclear which use cases should be supported (i.e. improved) by this system, and that means no one knows what to build and why and we are likely to remain in going-quickly-around-in-circles mode. Also, I'm sure Mei-Lin would appreciate such a list with business-relevant expected numbers when talking to business folks who ultimately have to fund this (directly or indirectly). Right? ;-) Cheers, Johannes. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 24 15:02:56 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7146A56FF3; Fri, 24 May 2002 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E219656FF2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06625 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 15:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4OMJBv25603 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CEEBC67.766ACF18@sun.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:19:19 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars > saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the > productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. I'm curious. Have such numbers ever been adduced for word processors or spreadsheets? Databases? How does one go about putting a dollar value on such things? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 24 17:27:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id AB19D56FF3; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 609AF56FF2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.5] ([12.234.196.149]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020525004356.SRFE11426.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@[192.168.100.5]>; Sat, 25 May 2002 00:43:56 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jernst@mail.r-objects.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3CEEBC67.766ACF18@sun.com> References: <20020524064033.90968.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> <3CEEBC67.766ACF18@sun.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:43:59 -0400 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Johannes Ernst Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Cc: Eric Armstrong Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 15:19 -0700 2002/05/24, Eric Armstrong wrote: >Johannes Ernst wrote: > >> I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars >> saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the >> productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. > >I'm curious. Have such numbers ever been adduced for word >processors or spreadsheets? Databases? You bet they have. Every marketer worth their salt (fairly few are, I'm afraid, but nevertheless), which means whose product sells, has numbers like that for all sorts of different situations. Some you may disagree with, etc. but they are there. Every single enterprise software deal has an ROI calculation associated with it, and you can't calculate ROI without having the numbers above. In case of when spreadsheets were new, this was simple. The following is made up, but you get the essence of it: user: department manager application (one of several): monthly project budget updates today: use mainframe application provided by MIS department proposal for tomorrow: use newly bought "PC" with Visicalc today's situation: formulas behind budget change approx. once every 3 months. Total effort to make one change: 3 days (aggregate work of MIS people and department manager, including training for new software) proposed situation: department manager edits spreadsheet formulas directly. After a training period, he can change the fomula in half a day. Savings every 3 months: 2.5 days * $1000 per day = $2500. Purchase cost hardware, plus software: $2500. Training required: $5000. ROI: 9 months. Ergo, no-brainer. >How does one go about putting a dollar value on such things? Note the specific role, and specific activity, otherwise the calculation does not work. In the context of the OHS, that's the gut of the problem I'd think: we don't know. Assigning the numbers is easy after that is done. So that's where the work needs to start I would think (with my marketing / product management hat on). From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 24 17:42:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 291E256FF4; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 611D656FF3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcaus6h.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.112.209] helo=D9KP0711) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17BPtO-0004uC-00; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:58:47 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:57:48 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <3CEEBC67.766ACF18@sun.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I wrote this in response to Johannes and Eric's questions and then decided to write more. This is about 2300 words long, so it is not a quick read. Sorry about that. Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars > saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the > productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. Eric Armstrong wrote: I'm curious. Have such numbers ever been adduced for word processors or spreadsheets? Databases? How does one go about putting a dollar value on such things? Mei Lin Fung: I'm going to jump in because I've worked in the area of working out the value of investment for technology and inevitably, many different ways emerge, just like there are many ways to get to nirvana or your choice of spiritual destination. In the process, I'm including some information that might help you understand my background and it might help explain how the background might be useful in working with Doug to bring his ideas back into the foreground. I end (with a longer than I intended section) with some thoughts about what and why I'm working with Doug and the current focus I have. If you want to participate, we have a few volunteer opportunities. If there is something you see needs to happen and you want to make it happen, write to me in email. Back to valuing investment, or showing results. The valuation approach I take is the idea of "customer lifetime value" (CLV) or to translate into this context "user lifetime value" or "community member lifetime value". This primer was developed to help explain how to value investment over a time series of events and activities. Not trying to measure investment success in measures that are too simplistic or inadequate, by offering an approach to incorporate more of the complexity that introducing new technology into an organization implies. I did not invent CLV, it was used to justify among other things all the junk mail you get today, in a book called Database Marketing by Arthur M Hughes. What I worked on was to help people understand that this technique is applicable for examining technology investment, not just marketing investment. There is a tutorial on my personal website www.isoe.com called "Customer lifetime value" Primer. It is 3 pages long, 1 of which is a spreadsheet (in pdf). It is included as an appendix in the book "CRM at the Speed of Light" by Paul Greenberg. It was written in 1998 as a supplement to a couple of papers called Marketing Math and Marketing Math FAQ (kind of scientific marketing engineering - based on my work experience at Oracle and Intel - indicator-driven companies that they are). If anyone wants a copy of those, let me know and I'll email them to you. My thinking has evolved since 1998 and that is reflected in the papers now on the home page of my site (written late 2000). Since then, I've got so busy trying to work out what Doug is talking about, I've no longer concentrated on updating my own site (yes, confessions of a website hibernator like many others.....) I haven't stopped writing altogether. There is a recent article of mine in www.crmguru.com "Back to the Future with Webservices". I went to school in Australia, ANU - where I did pure math - thesis was on differential game theory. Joined Shell Australia as a macro assembler programmer (worked on precursor to the mini computer 8100, called I think the 3790 - we debugged on a mainframe and it downloaded assembler to the machine, 3 registers, 3 indicators, 3x128 byte buffers - we were very excited to get to 6 registers!) Moved on after 2 years to work as an operations research analyst in their Corporate Planning Dept. "Operated" worked on/analyzed discounted cash flow models for the Woodside 25 year $8B Northwest shelf gas exploration project. Was trained in Shell's scenario planning approach - very useful in planning complex multi-faceted long term projects. Came to the US in 1982 to MIT to do my MBA - discovered modern finance theory, and studied under the guys doing the pioneering work in Options pricing (the differential game theory work was helpful in understanding this) Moved to work for Intel for 5 years then Oracle for 5 years. Now working on my own including about half or more of my time on Bootstrap Alliance initiatives. The rest of the time, I work with 1 or 2 startup companies a year, on strategy, positioning and doing fund raising-introductions. (Side note: While at Oracle I spent more time than I wanted on the licensing issues related to runtime, full use, sell thru ..... for resellers and integrators: years working with the legal department trying to understand how to make it work for all the people involved, VAR's, end users, end customers. With the advent of ISP's and ASP's, I think the licensing model has a way to go in its evolution and I'm not sure working with today's licensing building blocks to such detail helps a lot when the software development/delivery model is in such a state of flux. Side note to the Side note: Open Source and Free software - Doug has certain goals he wants to achieve for the OHS, from what I can see they don't neatly fit into a current licensing category, there seems only one way to work out what he's talking about and that is to engage in extensive dialogue about what he is trying to do, and why he is trying to do it. There are no short cuts that I can see that might make it feasible to lump everything in a single term like "open source" or "gpl" or "apache" and then decide that THAT is what Doug is talking about. It lies in his idea that he doesn't want people to patent the "nouns" and "verbs" of the new language - he doesn't want to get to dead ends where proprietary considerations take whole pathways out of consideration. Beyond that, it is necessary to go into the specific details. Proprietary and Opensource and Free are not a 1-dimensional spectrum. I can't see what "shape" Doug needs to articulate here. We need an entire exploration of this topic recorded in a DKR. End of side note to the side note. I'm personally very receptive to the "software as a utility" model,.. but I am completely open to see where it all goes as it evolves and develops and what model makes the most sense economically, practically and legally. All the problems have really not been surfaced yet, it's too early to leap to a solution for the OHS and OHS applications. End of Side note) At Oracle we developed what I think was an early DKR for sales and marketing - this was the actual prototype of the thing called CRM software this was in 1989. Tom Siebel hired me from Intel to work as his division controller and moonlight on the skunkworks project OASIS. The team that built and used OASIS was an incredible high performance team. How much that had to do with the DKR, it is really hard to say. They talk about "flow" that happens when a team is humming - I experienced that for 2 years. It was great. In a lot of ways, why I'm working with Doug is that in his ideas I see how the principles he articulate help to explain what happened in the high performance team experience I had. Why is this important to me? Why is this important now? I think we stand at a cross roads in which people have to take a stand about what kind of society we want to help to build. On one fork we have A. Automation-centric: a cyber-society - simulacra - Matrix, Blade Runner type society (did anyone read the article in the NY Times today about this?) B. Human-centric: a civil society - in which we identify the highest human goals and aspirations and harness technology to achieve them. Needless to say, the second is both the worthier and much harder goal. That's why we need to paddle hard in that direction, away from the danger zone. The second goal is not going to happen by accident. Doug is talking about why it is critical that we enable high performance teams because these teams are what are required to get out of the danger zone, to move us in direction toward the civil society aspiration, against all the forces lined up against this. This is what Doug has been talking about for over 50 years, and what he is trying to do is to suggest the principles required for working to achieve the second goal. I'm working with him actively on the launch of Bootstrap Alliance, which we aim to have in operation by 2003. We are recruiting charter communities who have their own purposeful agendas yet recognize they need to invest in collective improvement co-evolution and development - both organizational, individual (human system) and technology (tool system). These communities have to be ready to invest substantial time and long term effort toward the common goal. They will be hard to find, and most likely are already looking for a Bootstrap Alliance type of organization - working purposefully on improving their capabilities and their capabilities to improve. If you know of any, let me know, and let me know if you know someone key and influential in that group. The software is only one piece of Doug's vision, the co-evolution of human and tool systems requires the establishment of "bootstrapping communities" working together to use the software and define what is the next piece useful to it. We are "bootstrapping" Bootstrap by having the initial communities be ones that can be called upon to help fund the development effort, both on a community development level as well as software development. I've expressed the following thoughts privately and thought it might be time to say it on the list. These are my thoughts. They do not represent CPC direction, we are thinking about this. On the software development side: What I have found is that he needs a technical person to take the time to really sit and listen and dialogue with him to a degree that is almost impossible for most creative technical people (whose heads are really full of their own ideas about what he is talking about, there seems to be no space for Doug's actual ideas. It doesn't help of course that he is talking about things that involve paradigm shift in might not be in widespread use for 10-20 years.) I am committed to recruiting people to have that dialogue under conditions that most conducive for Doug to express his ideas. This has emerged as the only way to try and get his ideas out while we have a chance to get them. Ignoring him is not the way to go. Debating him to convince him of a different direction other than the one he has been pursuing for over 50 years will sap precious time and energy. Once/as the road map is written, I see more productive engagement with BA by those in the OHS community who are interested in doing this, to develop applications/tools/plug-ins that can be fitted together within the OHS framework which would already have been adopted and in use by the charter communities and hopefully an expanding group of purposeful communities interested in DKR's and the OHS. This provides a natural audience/market for any new software that plugs into the OHS framework. Also for services and solutions that extend, enhance or support the OHS. This does not in any way prevent the OHS community from self-organizing separate projects apart from BA. It would be nice to always explore the possibility of synergy. The only way to make abstract ideas concrete is not to talk around and around, but to actually work with them and see what happens. I hope you can understand this approach, it is the only way I know how to work. People who have been in Doug's orbit sometimes feel they understand fully the problem and what needs to be done. Often that seems to involve putting Doug on the shelf so that he stops making these troublesome remarks that people can't understand. This is to do him a disservice, that's my opinion. He is not at a place in his life where he wants to debate his ideas and plans, they have been the product of 51 years of thinking. He just wants to do it and to work with people that want to do it. What he wants to do has been outlined in the OHS Launch Plan for the hyperscope, BI2120. http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html This document is what we're working off to create the road map and software and I'm spending a ton of time working out how to get this specific, purposeful thing that Doug wants to do, funded. That's my topmost priority. Right now, if you want to help, I hope you don't mind if I mention interesting ways for you to keep closer in touch with what we are doing in BA to move forward with Doug's ideas and what you might do to help to make it happen sooner and reduce the risk of failure - two volunteer positions we could discuss are: 1. Website "sandbox" development environment - Technical lead 2. Master of the List Serve universe - as we host more discussion groups, we need to standardize the technical setup and develop community rules guidelines. 3. OHS Community Lead to liaise with the CPC - keep the community communications channels open, be the community advocate to the CPC. Write a Bootstrap Alliance update to the OHS list once a month. Give the community update to the CPC once a month. Your fellow volunteer Mei Lin Fung From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 24 20:01:23 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E1D3456FF3; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts10.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.54]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E45756FF2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.138]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020525031744.PUSS9426.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 23:17:44 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEF02EA.89D4BB84@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:20:10 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mei Lin. Excellent communication. Henry Mei Lin Fung wrote: > I wrote this in response to Johannes and Eric's questions and then > decided to write more. &c. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 01:54:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 286B956FF3; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5E4856FF2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdn-ar-010casfrmp031.dialsprint.net ([158.252.241.33] helo=a) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17BXZf-0005mY-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 02:10:56 -0700 Message-ID: <000901c203cb$f6304c40$21f1fc9e@a> From: "Joe D Williams" To: References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:10:05 -0700 Organization: Williams Publications/hypermultimedia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > What I have found is that he needs a technical person to take the time > to really sit and listen and dialogue with him Well, I think I've been a pretty good listener sometimes. I would offer http://www.hypermultimedia.com/DKR/model2.htm as a proof of this. i think it captures several important points of Doug's vision I obtained by listening to Doug and to interpretations from other contributors present at those series of meetings when we developed this diagram that Doug called 'Joe's picture'. First, an often overlooked feature is that this system need not be designed to help solve all problems at once. Really it only needs to work for one problem at a time. That problem is not necessarily a day-to-day problem, but is scalable to providing a solution to a Grand Challenge type problem. Of course several could be connected to widen the scope of the problem solving. Second, there is a progression as features of the problem and potential solutions evolve. Content becomes more useful as it gets refined by in a cycle, by people and tools who are cooperating and contributing to the process. Finally, the system is accessible. Thank You for asking. I would like to explore and help record Doug's thoughts on those three items above of others of interest to him. Can we discuss this in more detail soon. Thank You and Best Regards, Joe From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 08:51:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5D00356FF4; Sat, 25 May 2002 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F71556FF3; Sat, 25 May 2002 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWO002HNCS26W@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net>; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:07:32 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? In-reply-to: <3CEEBC67.766ACF18@sun.com> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org, ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org JE & EA -- Have a look at these two items. Also, please read and study the following: (I have closely evaluated this book and recommend it.) "Knowledge Assets - Professional's Guide to Valuation and Financial Management" by Mark K. Clare http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156070006/theclientserverc/ "This book is a practical guide to an investment-oriented approach to the valuation of knowledge management (KM) strategies and projects. It is not a how-to book on the accounting, appraisal-oriented, or intellectual capital approaches to the valuation of intangible assets. Most managers are interested in results. This book shows how to demonstrate those results by driving knowledge assets more directly and visibly into the financial statements of the organization. CD-ROM included." The San Francisco and Silicon Valley KM Cluster is hosting a two-day "Knowledge Economics Summit" to examine this precise issue. It is July 29/30, 2002, in San Francisco. It has not been formally announced, but ba-ohs/unrev-talk is invited and very welcome to visit the event Web and review this community event as it takes shape. http://www.kmcluster.com/kes/ "Knowledge Assets - Professional's Guide to Valuation and Financial Management" is the recommended text for the Knowledge Economics Summit. Mark K. Clare (author) will lead Day One of the Knowledge Economics Summit. Financial and economic fluency is central to the investment, diffusion and take-up of OHS and the Capabilities Infrastructure. Because Doug deeply understands and evangelizes the -critical- importance of sustained, ongoing investments, I invited him to be a keynote, to deliver: "Improving Our Ability to Improve: A Call for Investment in a New Future," but Mei-Lin said he was unavailable... The July 2002 "Knowledge Economics Summit" is a kick-off/bootstrap for many more Bay Area & Silicon Valley Knowledge Economics workshops, seminars and events that are required to develop deep competency in the economic and financial foundations of knowledge management, OHS and the Capabilities Infrastructure. Knowledge Economics for unrev/ohs will capture more (management) attention, drive more interest, win more sponsorship and develop more disciples than a number of the other initiatives, concerns and ongoing conversations. For better or worse, economics and finance are the lingua franca of progress and advancement in this day and age. Mastery of the overarching financial advantages of building Collective IQ will advance the unrev/ohs communities from simply pioneering conceptual principles, to playing the central role in proving, leading, deploying and implementing breakthrough knowledge-based and collaborative practices on a global scale. Cheers, John John Maloney www.kmcluster.com Email: jtmalone@pacbell.net Tel: 415.902.9676 eFax: 415.276.6074 IM:jheuristic Create the Future! Join the KM Cluster -- http://www.kmcluster.com/register.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:19 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars > saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the > productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. I'm curious. Have such numbers ever been adduced for word processors or spreadsheets? Databases? How does one go about putting a dollar value on such things? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 09:37:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8A11056FF4; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3363256FF3 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWO002DXEXE2Z@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:53:48 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? In-reply-to: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mei-Lin, Thanks for your message. I don't necessarily agree with your remark: "The only way to make abstract ideas concrete is not to talk around and around, but to actually work with them and see what happens." In my experience, "to talk around and around" is "work(ing) with them." I am a strong advocate of simulation, prototyping, modeling and systems thinking -- mechanisms to make "abstract ideas concrete." Michael Schrage's book, "Serious Play," is highly recommended. (Schrage was the Winter 2001 KM Cluster keynote speaker.) However, at the same time, there is substantial value in the process of "talk(ing) around and around" in settings with heterophilious links of low proximity, (e.g., "the strength of weak ties"). These exists within the many touchpoints of BI it members and stakeholders, for example. This is particularly important to concept maturity and diffusion. It is also important to note that the process of innovation and invention has proven to always being highly counter-intuitive. Efforts to bottle it never pan out. The great Nobel Laureate economist Freidrich Hayek said it best in his landmark 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (!highly recommended!) http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html "But those who clamor for "conscious direction"--and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design (and even without our understanding it) should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously--should remember this: The problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do." Cheers, jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Mei Lin Fung Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:58 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? I wrote this in response to Johannes and Eric's questions and then decided to write more. This is about 2300 words long, so it is not a quick read. Sorry about that. Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars > saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the > productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 10:53:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0A98056FF3; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CF6956FF2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcausqq.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.115.90] helo=D9KP0711) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Bfyw-0005Ps-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:09:35 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 11:08:35 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <000a01c20417$33054ee0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Thank you for pointing this out. It is the embrace of this very diversity of perspectives that will help us move in the direction of the civil society. The point about conscious direction reminds me of a review of a new book about Rudyard Kipling, who is described as a man of permanent contradictions. (Just think of his poem IF...) We will both pine for conscious direction and want to subvert it. This zig zag path will continue and in the oscillations learning and "progress" will happen. So, for example a high performance team works when there is purposeful activity by a group of people when they are striving for a common goal that overrides for the time, personal goals. Yet the very resentment by team members of conscious direction is what is necessary to make sure that the goal will self-corrects when needed. It is not sufficient though.... Your remark reminds me that it is important to clarify that BA-OHS as a discussion group exists in parallel to and independently of the effort in BA right now, to try and work out what it is that is the entity that Doug is talking about. My own focus on that goal should not be interpreted as meaning that there is any reason for the discussion in BA-OHS should focus on that. In fact it is better, far far better that the people involved in reading and posting on BA-OHS continue the search, the discussion, the refinement of thinking and concept diffusion. We have no guarantee that if we build what Doug wants, that it will be "The One". It is absolutely certain in my mind that there is no "One" thing that will "save" us or solve the worlds problems! The things we can work on are what will enable people and people in teams to work on things in ways that are more fun, inspiring, provide learning and insights and in the end are productive. I think it is important work with Doug to explicate his concept of OHS and tool and human system co-development, mostly because I think there is still much we have to learn and understand from the thinking he has refined over many many years. Hopefully what is learned will help steer us from some (but only some) of the blind alleys and potholes that we might otherwise fall into. I commit to share my learning as related to Doug's work, I hope each of you will be ready to step forward to share your insights and learnings too. It will take a village, and more to move this forward. Mei Lin -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of John Maloney Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 9:54 AM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Mei-Lin, Thanks for your message. I don't necessarily agree with your remark: "The only way to make abstract ideas concrete is not to talk around and around, but to actually work with them and see what happens." In my experience, "to talk around and around" is "work(ing) with them." I am a strong advocate of simulation, prototyping, modeling and systems thinking -- mechanisms to make "abstract ideas concrete." Michael Schrage's book, "Serious Play," is highly recommended. (Schrage was the Winter 2001 KM Cluster keynote speaker.) However, at the same time, there is substantial value in the process of "talk(ing) around and around" in settings with heterophilious links of low proximity, (e.g., "the strength of weak ties"). These exists within the many touchpoints of BI it members and stakeholders, for example. This is particularly important to concept maturity and diffusion. It is also important to note that the process of innovation and invention has proven to always being highly counter-intuitive. Efforts to bottle it never pan out. The great Nobel Laureate economist Freidrich Hayek said it best in his landmark 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (!highly recommended!) http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html "But those who clamor for "conscious direction"--and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design (and even without our understanding it) should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously--should remember this: The problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do." Cheers, jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Mei Lin Fung Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:58 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? I wrote this in response to Johannes and Eric's questions and then decided to write more. This is about 2300 words long, so it is not a quick read. Sorry about that. Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would like to add: the **benefits** of such a system. In dollars > saved per person per day, preferably. E.g. it will increase the > productivity of a user of class A by 5% (?) when performing task B. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 10:58:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BC88756FF4; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 496F056FF3 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWO002HUIP16D@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 11:15:12 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Is Cancer Un-American? In-reply-to: To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org "Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called a cancer and un- American." Microsoft fights Pentagon's software Jonathan Krim, Washington Post, Friday, May 24, 2002 C2002 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/24 /BU45851.DTL Washington -- Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials familiar with the campaign. In what one military source called a barrage of contacts with officials at the Defense Information Systems Agency and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the past few months, the company said open source software threatens security and its intellectual property. The effort may have backfired. A May 10 report prepared for the Defense Department concluded that open source often results in more secure, less expensive applications and that, if anything, its use should be expanded. "Banning open source would have immediate, broad and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups to protect themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre Corp. A Microsoft spokesman acknowledged discussions between the company and the Pentagon but denied urging a ban on open-source software. He also said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws. Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said. John Stenbit, an assistant secretary of defense and the Defense Department's chief information officer, said Microsoft has said using free software with commercial software might violate companies' intellectual- property rights. Stenbit said the issue is legally murky. The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's open-source competitors, Stenbit said. Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called a cancer and un- American. Software is designated open source when its underlying computer code is available for anyone to license, enhance or customize, often at no cost. The theory is that by putting source code in the public domain, programmers worldwide can improve software by sharing their work. Vendors of the proprietary systems, such as Microsoft and Oracle Corp., keep their source codes secret, control changes to programs and collect all licensing fees for their use. Government agencies use a patchwork of systems and software. Proprietary software is still the most widely used, but open source has become more popular with businesses and government. The Mitre report said open-source software "plays a more critical role in the DOD than has been generally recognized." The report identified 249 uses of open-source systems and tools, including running a Web portal for the Defense Intelligence Agency and running network security for the Army in Europe. Among the most high-profile efforts is research funded by the National Security Agency to develop a more-secure version of the open-source Linux operating system, which competes with Microsoft's Windows. At the Census Bureau, programmers used open-source software to launch a Web site for obtaining federal statistics for $47,000, bureau officials said. It would have cost $358,000 if proprietary software had been used, they said. C2002 San Francisco Chronicle Page B - 2 From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 11:51:42 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A91CF56FF4; Sat, 25 May 2002 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BA7C56FF2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-14-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.1.14]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3F32448C for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:07:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CEFE163.7A5977B@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:09:23 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Is Cancer Un-American? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > "Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the > open-source movement, which company officials have called a cancer and un- > American." Just posted a satire I wrote called "MicroSlaw" to this comment form: http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm in response to a request for comments at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on copyright legal issues: http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/feature.cfm You can see a copy of what I posted here on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/23/2355237&mode=thread&tid=97&threshold=2 as part of this larger Slashdot discussion of the MPAAs latest attempt to get copy protection added to all devices that perform analog to digital conversion: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/23/2355237 I'll admit this satire was inspired in part by recent discussions here on licensing. Would have posted it here first in its entirety if permission to use had been resolved. Impressed with all the other postings here over the last few days -- haven't had time to reply as we've been busy freeing the rest of our software and forming a new organization to do some good things. (New Sig too!) -Paul Fernhout The Pointrel Foundation Helping people understand nature, technology, and society by developing free software and free content, as well as networks of free digital libraries to house such free knowledge. http://www.pointrel.org From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 18:03:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8CB7156FF3; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BE6256FF2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-204-91.oak.jps.net ([209.239.204.91] helo=netzero.net) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17BmhS-00067W-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:19:59 -0700 Message-ID: <3CF03846.C8A3EE63@netzero.net> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:20:06 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] OHS/DKR Design for KM and Licensing References: <20020516205837.31104.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> <3CE42761.7295E836@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE42B3C.318F978C@sun.com> <3CE465C5.70D48B28@attglobal.net> <3CE5150D.742CD1D4@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CE5857B.5573127F@attglobal.net> <4.2.2.20020517172820.00e005d0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack, I see you're interested in the study of Biomimetry of bee hives and ant colonies relative to OHS network development. So, I assume you're aware of the Bio-Networking Simulator being developed at UC Irvine for wireless networking and swarm technology? If not, then the Bio-Networking Simulator is a testbed for investigating various aspects in the Bio-Networking Architecture such as evolution, adaptability, scalability, survivability and discovery. You can download the simulator from here: < http://netresearch.ics.uci.edu/bionet/resources/simulator/index.html >. It's being used to develop: - Adaptive networking: Network-aware distributed applications, proactive self-tuning systems for ubiquitous computing, and custom channel building for large-scale network systems - Infrastructureless networking: Ad-hoc disposable networks; dynamically forming, self-organizing hierarchy; and precision geo-location and UWB radios to support sensornets - Heterogeneous networking: Heterogeneity of future network services; hierarchical addressing to simplify switching; and improving TCP/IP with features developed for User-Level Network Interfaces (ULNI) Project Overview "It is not difficult to imagine a future where billions of people regularly access applications running inside the global network as part of their daily lives. To make this future a reality, network services and applications must satisfy the following requirements: * they must be able to scale to billions of nodes and users * they must be able to adapt to diverse and dynamic conditions in the network * they must be secure and highly available * they should require minimal human configuration and management We believe that large scale biological systems, such as the bee or ant colony, have already developed many of the mechanisms needed to satisfy these requirements. We have identified several key principles and mechanisms in these biological systems, and we are now applying them to the design of network services and applications. Over millions of years of evolution, large scale biological systems, such as the bee or ant colony, have developed mechanisms that allow them to scale, adapt, and survive. Consider the bee colony. Bee colonies scale to a large number of bees because all activities of the hive are carried out without centralized control. Bees act autonomously, influenced by local conditions and local interactions with other bees. When building the hive, bees are guided only by the structure of the partially completed hexagonal cells around them. There is no master bee that controls the building of the hive. The bee colony also adapts to dynamic conditions, often to optimize its food gain relative to energy expenditure. When the amount of honey in the hive is low, a large number of food gathering bees leave the hive to gather nectar from the flowers in the area. When the hive is nearly full of honey, most bees remain in the hive and rest. The bee colony is survivable because it is not dependent on any single bee, not even the queen bee. Therefore, the colony can still survive after a predator kills a number of bees. In fact, the desirable characteristics of the bee colony, scalability, adaptability, and survivability, are not present in any single bee. Rather, they emerge from the collective actions and interactions of all the bees in the colony. We believe that the challenges faced by future network applications have already been overcome in large scale biological systems and that future network applications will benefit by adopting key biological principles and mechanisms. The Bio-Networking Architecture is a paradigm as well as middleware for the design and implementation of scalable, adaptive, and survivable/available network applications. The paradigm is based on the principles and mechanisms that allow biological systems to scale, adapt, and survive. While the paradigm guides the design of a network application, the middleware aids the implementation the application by providing software components, namely cyber-entities and Bio-networking platforms. Cyber-entities are autonomous mobile agents that are used to implement network applications. Bio-networking platforms provide execution environments and support services for the cyber-entities." Jack Park wrote: > A while back, I began to collect my thoughts. Far from complete, and, in > fact, I haven't touched those pages for a while now. However, perhaps it's > time to reveal them and see what might come of that. > > http://www.thinkalong.com/JP/cpc/ > > Cheers > Jack From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 18:04:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 758AC56FF5; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from reba.bestweb.net (reba.bestweb.net [209.94.102.72]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE7B756FF3 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1291-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.6.21]) by reba.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2914250D8 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 20:22:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CF0390F.C5ADB1BA@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 21:23:27 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Is Cancer Un-American? References: <3CEFE163.7A5977B@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul Fernhout wrote: > You can see a copy of what I posted here on Slashdot: > [Snip] I posted the wrong link (it went to the large discussion instead of my post). The correct link for the MicroSlaw satire should be: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33107&threshold=2&commentsort=0&tid=97&mode=thread&cid=3582999 -Paul Fernhout == The Pointrel Foundation == Helping people understand nature, technology, and society == by developing free software and free content, as well as == networks of free digital libraries to house such free knowledge. == http://www.pointrel.org From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sat May 25 18:59:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9D4B656FF3; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52CD356FF2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 18:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdn-ar-010casfrmp031.dialsprint.net ([158.252.241.33] helo=a) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17BnZh-0002pb-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 19:16:02 -0700 Message-ID: <053501c2045b$28984cc0$21f1fc9e@a> From: "Joe D Williams" To: References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 19:15:07 -0700 Organization: Williams Publications/hypermultimedia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > 1. Website "sandbox" development environment - Technical lead Technically this is a very complex and important part of the project. For the user to have the necessary power and influence over visualization, manipulation, and sharing processes, the OHS must have complete access to all system resources, even browser(s) and other core OS assets. This creates some special security problems for local and distributed components. Thank You and Best Regards, Joe From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Sun May 26 15:13:57 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DBCEB56FF3; Sun, 26 May 2002 15:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCFAC56FF2 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4QMUEn08298 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 17:30:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 17:30:14 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? In-Reply-To: <3CEB05A0.BD75DBEF@sun.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On Tue, 21 May 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote: > Other alternatives for decision making including voting > systems, and "rated evaluations", where an alternative > eventually snowballs to victory based on the strength > of the evaluations and the reputations of the people > giving them. (So when 3 very respected people give > proposition X a "+5", I'm inclined to go along for the ride!) > > Personally, I think that rated evaluations make a lot of > sense. But we need tools to structure the decision and > sort things according to their ratings so the cream rises > to the top, where it is on screen. (There's a fair amount of personal spray in this message, and for that I apologize, but I figure it's worth sharing some of this stuff.) As an aside, I have some very simple perl code called Agendamaker, which is a very simple, semi-anonymous, consensual issue management system. I don't think I've mentioned it before but I'm not sure[1]. I used it in a workplace to encourage those without a voice to raise issues (literally) up an agenda. There's more info here from an advogato entry on July 29 of 2000: http://www.advogato.org/person/cdent/diary.html?start=19 One iteration of the code is here: http://www.kiva.net/~cdent/cgi-bin/toot/agendamaker.cgi that page has a link to the source. I used it as part of a CGI tutorial I did for the tech support people at that organization. That's at: http://www.kiva.net/~cdent/toot/ Unfortunately I've recently discovered that my cookie management (preventing individuals from voting more than once per issue is not really working). I mention this because in separate conversation with Mei Lin about high performance teams I recalled that what makes a team high performance is not complex, highly-engineered tools that do lots of neat stuff, but instead the will to be high performance, the ability to share knowledge, and an attention to processes that allows for the identification of the tight roadblocks to communication and process. If those roadblocks can be identified some of them can be eased or removed by small, focused tools that are not complicated in themselves but have large results. Agendamaker was supposed to be one of those tools but it did not achieve the desired results. Instead of giving voice to people, it led to the confrontation that nearly got me fired and caused me to leave my job. However the methods had led to some other tools and processes that were very helpful: McFeely (a generic distributed task automater): http://web.systhug.com/mcfeely/ See: http://web.systhug.com/mcfeely/examples.html for examples of what it was used for. Arts (a simple knowledge base manager): http://arts.sourceforge.net/ A simple search interface to the group email archive, using glimpse, just from the command line: http://www.webglimpse.org/ None of these tools are even remotely close to perfect, but they loosened roadblocks that raised our productivity immensely. [1] Webglimpse is not a perfect tool, but could provide an easy system for creating indexes of the mailing list archives. With that I would have been able to search for reference to agendamaker in the archives. This is a considerably different task from the conceptual access on which Kathryn and I are working. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 28 09:44:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1D3F056FF3; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 512F656FF2; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWT00CWNZ9PYD@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:02 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] RE: [ba-unrev-talk] About networks In-reply-to: <3CF38B6A.EAAEA894@sympatico.ca> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org, OHS Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Hi -- List readers may appreciate this initiative: http://www.thinktankconsultants.com/thinktank.html I've been working with Jim McGann, senior fellow & founding partner, on this for a couple years. This is a great opportunity for unrev/ohs members to contribute to the advancement of civil societies. If you are interested in sponsorship, investment or volunteering, please let me know. I will send you the prospectus and coordinate. There is particular interest in Objective 3 -- "Develop a viable network of think tanks that fosters collaboration, information sharing and the transfer of innovative technologies and best practices from one institution to another." and... o Effective use of knowledge and issue networks to facilitate the creation, dissemination and utilization of policy relevant information and ideas o Enterprising use of technologies, products and programs that increase policy impacts The scope is >3200 think tanks from 126 countries. Probably deserves some coverage in Fleabyte too. Cheers, John John Maloney www.kmcluster.com Email: jtmalone@pacbell.net IM:jheuristic Create the Future! Join the KM Cluster -- http://www.kmcluster.com/register.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Henry K van Eyken Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 6:52 AM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] About networks Augment and OHS are very much about networks and that is one basis for selecting items for Fleabyte. You may be interested in: 1. How Internet games are a driving force here (fascinating + lots of links): http://www.fleabyte.org/index.html#fo-67 2. Community nets: http://www.fleabyte.org/index.html#fo-66 H. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Tue May 28 20:49:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E7E4156FF3; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5253856FF2 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07635 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 22:05:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4T45sv23214 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF453B4.4A9427B5@sun.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:06:12 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I don't really understand it, so I'm hoping someone will explain it to me. Gently. Slowly. In the meantime, all you hackers out there should know: That's the specification. It's the only one we've got, so go forth and multiply. Meanwhile, will the powers that be please resolve the licensing issues so the hacker guys can start contributing code. Maybe when I use it I'll understand it, and then I'll change my mind and like it. In the meantime, *anything* is a step forward. It's like we're in a circle with our backs to one another. Any direction we choose becomes "forward", so let's go with the HyperScope. What is it, anyway?? From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 00:21:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8371956FF4; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C89556FF3 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020529073803.71652.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:38:03 PDT Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:38:03 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CF453B4.4A9427B5@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > In the meantime, all you hackers out there should > know: That's the specification. > > It's the only one we've got, so go forth and > multiply. I have looked into the hypescope, one thing that occured to me is the idea of a smart cache.... The hypescope should be able to read all types of documents? I use google, and it indexs all types. The GPLed namatzu search engine can index all types as well, this might be something to use as a back end for a first implementation. A filter process that transforms documents into something usable on the server side? Or are we talking about a very powerfull IE5 with plugings that can read anything via OLE plugings? mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 11:11:35 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 82EE956FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDCE956FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcauqn1.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.106.225] helo=D9KP0711) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17D8An-0002o5-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:27:49 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 03:50:43 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <000001c206fe$aee5f0c0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C206C4.028718C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C206C4.028718C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm sending this in response to the comments by Mike and Eric about the Hyperscope. > In the meantime, all you hackers out there should > know: That's the specification. > > It's the only one we've got, so go forth and > multiply. I have looked into the hypescope, one thing that occured to me is the idea of a smart cache.... The hypescope should be able to read all types of documents? I use google, and it indexs all types. The GPLed namatzu search engine can index all types as well, this might be something to use as a back end for a first implementation. A filter process that transforms documents into something usable on the server side? Or are we talking about a very powerfull IE5 with plugings that can read anything via OLE plugings? mike ===== James Michael DuPont MLF: I would recommend that anyone who wants to work on a Hyperscope in a way that might engage Doug's interest would probably need to start understanding what Doug has most recently said about the work at Bootstrap Alliance and the technology to be developed in the co-evolution process. 5/14 from a private email from Mei Lin I had a very interesting meeting with Doug to try and work out what we might do in order to Bootstrap the OHS. The reason why we need to do this, is that as we recruit Charter members for the Bootstrap Alliance, the technology road map becomes of increasing interest. Doug has made a major start on this in his paper . The pieces that are lacking have to do with: 1. Tying it to current technologies in some way - it is a functional spec - we would need to pick out promising components out that as initial starting points 2. Making it a credible and tangible starting point that clearly leads to the evolutionary framework in a way that others besides Doug can understand 3. Breaking it down into a collaborative effort that many minds can engage in This is the earliest stage of any launch. Doug Engelbart: May 7, 2002: Here goes: some words about what the Bootstrap Alliance (BA) is designed to become, and why join it. 1. An important, basic point here is about getting best ROI on C-work when appropriately pooling your org's C-investment dollars with other orgs within a suitable Improvement Community -- and best if this Community is a Bootstrapping NIC. Assumption: The members of a given Improvement Community are all seeking to improve the same Improvement Vector within their respective organizations. Examples: Improving software-development productivy. Or, Improving the teaching/Learning effectiveness in a school/university system. Or, improving manufacturing efficiency and quality. 2. BA is to evolve into a special Networked Improvement Community (NIC), one whose cooperating members are themselves NICS, where the mutual improvement vector among the member NICs is, "How to maximize the rate at which we can improve our Collective IQs and apply that towards being a more effective NIC." I.e., full application of Bootstrapping Strategy. 3. Here we assume maximum attention to Facilitating the Co-evolution of Human and Tool Systems. And that involves two key, basic, high-focus, coordinated pursuits: a. Tool-System Launch: Initiation and long-term, continuing evolution of an open-ended, Open-Source, Open Hyperdocument System (OHS). Basic description developed in '92 publication, see for some general, basic, early-stage user features, and for early-stage architectural features Assuming the OHS will evolve to include everything mentioned/expected in the "Semantic Web" prognosis -- and more ... Initial, first-stage OHS, the Hyperscope, can be introduced for immediately useful application within an organization's existing "legacy" applications and files (and/or data bases) -- with as little transitional shifts as possible -- and to enable continuing evolution from there with a designed minimum of "transitional discontinuities." This "HyperScope" spec is a key part of the planned OHS launch. See Thereafter: Significant capability extensions already planned, to extend smoothly the properties and functions provided by the HyperScope-initiated OHS as versions 1, 2, etc. A uniquely extensive array of "knowledge-container properties" is expected, when integrating such as the known AUGMENT-system capabilities and the current, emergent capabilities associated with the "Semantic Web" movement ... and more are sure to evolve and be included. And similarly, a uniquely extensive array of functional operations will emerge to be integrated into the "knowledge-worker's specialty vocabularies," becoming more and more the basic operative vocabulary and performance capabilities of an ever-increasing proportion of our population. b. Human-System Launch: Years of experience with extensive application of the AUGMENT System brings an assurance that by e.g. "Stage-3" of HyperScope evolution, there will be an emergent set of uniquely usefuly new capabilities within an organization's knowledge-work activity. At some point here there would be opportunity (and significant value) in stimulating some users to work themselves into a first-stage, "high-performance" level of capability. This would entail enhancing the OHS architecture to include a (eventually multiple) new UIS (User Interface System), specially tailored to specialty work at first, but much of this would eventually be common capabilities (somewhat as today's automobile drivers have "common capabilities" what would have been judged in 1905 to be "high performance"). And a parallel activity would be important to promote -- setting up specific "high-performance team" cultivation (and even having competitive trial events). End of quote from Doug Mei Lin Fung ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C206C4.028718C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’m sending this in response to the = comments by Mike and Eric about the Hyperscope.

 

> In the meantime, all you hackers out = there should

> know: That's the = specification.

>

> It's the only one we've got, so go forth = and

> multiply.

I have looked into the hypescope,

one thing that occured to me is the idea of a = smart

cache.... The hypescope should be able to = read all

types of documents? I use google, and it = indexs all

types. The GPLed namatzu search engine can = index all

types as well, this might be something to use = as a

back end for a first implementation. A filter process

that transforms documents into something = usable on the

server side?

 

Or are we talking about a very powerfull IE5 = with

plugings that can read anything via OLE = plugings?

 

mike

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

James Michael DuPont

 

=

 

=

 

=

MLF:

I would recommend that anyone who wants to work on a = Hyperscope in a way that might engage Doug’s interest would probably need to = start understanding what Doug has most recently said about the work at Bootstrap Alliance = and the technology to be developed in the co-evolution process.

 

5/14 from a private email from Mei Lin

 

I had a very interesting meeting with Doug to try and work out what we = might do in order to Bootstrap the OHS.

 

The reason why we need to do this, is that as we recruit Charter members for = the Bootstrap Alliance, the technology road map becomes of increasing = interest.

 

Doug has made a major start on this in his paper <http://www.bootstra= p.org/augment/BI/2120.htm>. The pieces that are lacking have to do with:

 

  1. Tying it to current technologies in some way – it is a functional = spec – we would need to pick out promising components out that as = initial starting points
  2. Making it a credible and tangible starting point that clearly leads to the evolutionary framework in a way that others besides Doug can = understand
  3. Breaking it down into a collaborative effort that many minds can engage = in

 

This is the earliest stage of any launch.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Engelbart: May 7, = 2002:

Here goes: some words about what the Bootstrap Alliance (BA) is designed to = become, and why join it.

 

   1.  An important, basic point here is about getting best ROI on = C-work when appropriately pooling your org's C-investment dollars with other = orgs within a suitable Improvement Community -- and best if this Community is = a Bootstrapping NIC.

 

      Assumption: The members of a given Improvement Community are all seeking = to improve the same Improvement Vector within their respective = organizations.

 

      Examples:  Improving software-development productivy.  Or, = Improving the teaching/Learning effectiveness in a school/university system. Or, improving manufacturing efficiency and quality.

 

   2.  BA is to evolve into a special Networked Improvement Community = (NIC), one whose cooperating members are themselves NICS, where the mutual = improvement vector among the member NICs is, "How to maximize the rate at which = we can improve our Collective IQs and apply that towards being a more effective NIC."

 

      I.e., full application of Bootstrapping Strategy.

 

   3.  Here we assume maximum attention to Facilitating the = Co-evolution of Human and Tool Systems.  And that involves two key, basic, = high-focus, coordinated pursuits:

 

      a.  Tool-System Launch:  Initiation and long-term, continuing evolution of an open-ended, Open-Source, Open Hyperdocument System = (OHS).

 

Basic description developed in '92 publication,

 <http://www.= bootstrap.org/augment/AUGMENT/132811.html>

 

see <http://ww= w.bootstrap.org/augment/AUGMENT/132811.html#7> for some general, basic, early-stage user features, and <http://ww= w.bootstrap.org/augment/AUGMENT/132811.html#8> for early-stage architectural features

 

Assuming the OHS will evolve to include everything mentioned/expected in the = "Semantic Web" prognosis -- and more ...

 

Initial, first-stage OHS, the Hyperscope, can be introduced for immediately = useful application within an organization's existing "legacy" = applications and files (and/or data bases) -- with as little transitional shifts as = possible -- and to enable continuing evolution from there with a designed minimum = of "transitional discontinuities."

 

This "HyperScope" spec is a key part of the planned OHS launch. See = <http://www.bootstra= p.org/augment/BI/2120.htm>

 

Thereafter: Significant capability extensions already planned, to extend smoothly = the properties and functions provided by the HyperScope-initiated OHS as = versions 1, 2, etc.

 

A uniquely extensive array of "knowledge-container properties" = is expected, when integrating such as the known AUGMENT-system capabilities = and the current, emergent capabilities associated with the "Semantic = Web" movement ... and more are sure to evolve and be included.

 

And similarly, a uniquely extensive array of functional operations will = emerge to be integrated into the "knowledge-worker's specialty = vocabularies," becoming more and more the basic operative vocabulary and performance capabilities of an ever-increasing proportion of our = population.

 

      b.  Human-System Launch:

 

       &nbs= p; Years of experience with extensive application of the AUGMENT System = brings an assurance that by e.g. "Stage-3" of HyperScope evolution, = there will be an emergent set of uniquely usefuly new capabilities within an organization's knowledge-work activity.

 

       &nbs= p; At some point here there would be opportunity (and significant value) in stimulating some users to work themselves into a first-stage, "high-performance" level of capability.

 

       &nbs= p;    This would entail enhancing the OHS architecture to include a = (eventually multiple) new UIS (User Interface System), specially tailored to = specialty work at first, but much of this would eventually be common capabilities = (somewhat as today's automobile drivers have "common capabilities" what = would have been judged in 1905 to be "high performance").

 

And a  parallel activity would be important to promote -- setting up = specific "high-performance team" cultivation (and even having = competitive trial events).

 

 

End of quote from Doug

 

 

 

 

Mei Lin = Fung

 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C206C4.028718C0-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 13:48:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E15E956FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEC1956FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4TL4PK17876 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:04:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:04:25 -0500 (EST) From: To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? In-Reply-To: <3CF453B4.4A9427B5@sun.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org (I make this "homework post" in honor of something I read from Nicholas Carroll.) On Tue, 28 May 2002, Eric Armstrong wrote: > I don't really understand it, so I'm hoping someone > will explain it to me. Gently. Slowly. Is it that you don't understand the document(s) describing it, or that you don't understand why it is a worthwhile starting point? Or are you making another point in the conversation by demonstration? This http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html Draft OHS-Project Plan seems fairly straightforward at describing the functional aspects. My interpretation is that it's a tool for getting at stuff and then making reference to it. _That's it_. The complicated part is what is stuff and how do we make reference to it. The "lightly modified" web browser gets access to stuff by translating it to an intermediate format. It makes reference to it with something like purple numbers. Why do you want to do that? My own version of why is based on Eric Drexler's discussion at the Foresight Institute. Some of that here: http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/sliswarp/scope/index.cgi#3 Enhancing Knowledge Creation especially this part http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/sliswarp/scope/index.cgi#3.7 A Knowledge Enhancement System I compiled that information long before I got on this list... > In the meantime, all you hackers out there should > know: That's the specification. Given that I see two primary (accessible) tasks: - a format translation engine - * -> (generic XML format) - suitable for translation to XHTML for display - a purple number registry - display any document with purple references - use a database of URLs and last modified time to invalidate generated purple numbers, as necessary Semi-functional prototypes of these things could be done in CGIs and be valuable tools in that form. > It's the only one we've got, so go forth and multiply. > > Meanwhile, will the powers that be please resolve > the licensing issues so the hacker guys can start > contributing code. I take it to be resolved: http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0205/msg00057.html#nid06 Bootstrap and Licensing (from Doug) but perhaps that is because I prefer the GPL? > Maybe when I use it I'll understand it, and then > I'll change my mind and like it. Something that may be missing is that we frequently approach tools hoping that it will allow us to continue our existing habits and have some gain as a result. I think in this case we need to change our habits at least as much as the tools. For example, when I find the energy to do it, making reference by purple number helps to put me in context and I think, but have no confirmation (anyone?), that it helps the reader. > In the meantime, *anything* is a step forward. > It's like we're in a circle with our backs to one > another. Any direction we choose becomes "forward", > so let's go with the HyperScope. I agree. > What is it, anyway?? Did this do any of what you wanted, whatever that may have been? -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 13:52:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 49DA656FF4; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A257956FF3 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13039 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4TL8kv17567 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF54372.B5842A70@sun.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:09:06 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > Did this do any of what you wanted, whatever that may have been? Actually, it did quite a bit. Thanks! (It's been so long since we talked about it, I couldn't remember detail one.) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 14:15:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9315456FF4; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E72C56FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdn-ar-002casfrmp100.dialsprint.net ([158.252.209.102] helo=a) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17DB2a-00078Q-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:31:33 -0700 Message-ID: <057901c20758$0936d4a0$66d1fc9e@a> From: "Joe D Williams" To: References: <000001c206fe$aee5f0c0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:30:19 -0700 Organization: Williams Publications/hypermultimedia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.htm should be http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html Please notice Doug's description of the progression from adding the purple numbers, refining their actual content, and how each contribution added to the next - and how Doug credited the work. Now they are ready for actual use. How? The content of the purple numbers gives the first hint in how they are actually used. The content is the address of the paragraph. When you copy a paragraph with a purple number, then the HyperScope is really copying the the source, with _All_ markup included, not just the text. Now when you paste the paragraph, the original purple number link remains attached. If a new purple number is applied to the new document, the new number does not replace the original, it is simply added to the list. In addition, in order to provide an absolute traceability, if only a portion of the paragraph is copied, the the HyperScope may need to examine surrounding content to find the best purple number and other information about the current fragment. The HyperScope then would create the link by defining the range of the copy in the original text. This link retention is done automatically but is under complete control by the author in that links may be added or deleted manually. >From this, it is only a short step to thinking that a copy and paste operation never copies any actual text at all, but is simply an operation of creating a link that is complete enough to define the location of the subject fragment. In effect, a 'document' may be just a series of links that the HyperScope fetches and reconstructs for presentation. Thank You and Best Regards, Joe From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 14:23:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9FEAD56FF4; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13307.mail.yahoo.com (web13307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28C7556FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020529214009.27960.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [149.225.152.39] by web13307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:40:03 PDT Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:40:03 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <000001c206fe$aee5f0c0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > 1. Tying it to current technologies in some way - it > is a > functional spec - we would need to pick out > promising components out > that as initial starting points I really like the touchgraph and would like to use it personally as a basis for a next generation browser, that and a callback handler for emacs and editing and the ability to plug in new node generators and xrefs systems. Added in a huge postgres database with all the nodes store in there. What do you think? mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 14:28:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 38B6156FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13302.mail.yahoo.com (web13302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A16D656FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020529214454.31665.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [149.225.152.39] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:44:54 PDT Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:44:54 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > - a purple number registry > - display any document with purple references > - use a database of URLs and last modified time to > invalidate > generated purple numbers, as necessary How about the touchgraph purple number email archive reader. You answer to nodes by clicking on the paragraph and a new response is created with the references. At least copied into the clipboard. What do you think? Mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 15:12:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6B64456FF4; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A161A56FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4TMSf518093 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 17:28:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:28:40 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? In-Reply-To: <20020529214454.31665.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org On Wed, 29 May 2002, James Michael DuPont wrote: > > > - a purple number registry > > - display any document with purple references > > - use a database of URLs and last modified time to > > invalidate > > generated purple numbers, as necessary > > How about the touchgraph purple number email archive > reader. You answer to nodes by clicking on the > paragraph and a new response is created with the > references. At least copied into the clipboard. I don't think I quite understand what you mean? Or more specifically, how does what you say fit into the larger picture? What I was speaking of was a CGI tool for displaying any web page, from anywhere, with purple numbers. The CGI takes a URL as input and provides the page with purple numbers as output. To make it work well, it could also rewrite links in the translated page as links through the CGI. With that, you can live in a purple numbered universe and have improved document addressibility. That's all it does. A prototype would only work with text/plain and text/html. If the first tool I mentioned was created it could work with the output it generated as well. To make it work, we'd need a list of what things, in what context, indicate the end of text segment that can be numbered. In text/plain that appears to be an end of line followed by a blank line, based on how Eugene has done purple for the mail archives. In HTML I would guess that it is any closing tag, or any place that a closing tag ought to be, associated with structuring text. Presumably something like Tidy would be handy in that context. That corresponds with what Eugene has said in his discussion of adding purple to websites: http://www.eekim.com/cgi-bin/dkr?fn=/ohs/purplecasestudy.html Case Study: Adding Purple Numbers to Web Sites In there a tool called xhtml_purple is mentioned: http://www.eekim.com/cgi-bin/dkr?fn=/ohs/purplecasestudy.html#sid053 Eugene, is that code available? If not, can it be? Is it built into your dkr CGI? Can dkr be adjusted to be this tool I'm talking about? Murray, the references I have to plink are at doctypes.org and that domain is dead. Is there another location? I'm fairly certain much of this, including the question of how to mark purple numbers, was probably discussed before. Does anyone have some references beyond what I've already mentioned? Also, I'm very much taking the attitude that started is better than perfect and not started. I realize these suggestions are far from ideal. Who is in a position to put a search engine on the mail archives? -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 18:23:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1933056FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A468E56FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-199-121.oak.jps.net ([209.239.199.121] helo=netzero.net) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17DEv9-0002Ih-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:40:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3CF58307.6CB5DF9D@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:40:23 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope Launch Plan & The Digital Promise Project: A Digital Gift to the Nation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org I found and read an interesting article published in the Carnegie Reporter (Fall 2001) posted on EECS bulletin boards at UC Berkeley that let me to: The Digital Promise Project c/o The Century Foundation 41 East 70th St. New York, NY 10021 Tel: (212) 535-4441 Fax: (212) 535-7534 E-mail: < digitalpromise@tcf.org > Using part of the proceeds derived from the sale of wireless frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum to underwrite the development of new content is long overdue and is an idea whose time has certainly come. < http://www.digitalpromise.org/events.asp > Why A Digital Gift to the Nation ? "Some of the people we’ve talked to in government bring up this same argument. Why do you need a public trust fund when the marketplace is already so focused on the digital world and the Internet? Our answer is, well, why do you need public libraries in this country when we already have bookstores? And why do we need public parks if we’ve got country clubs? Why do we need public hospitals if we’ve got private medical institutions? We’re talking about the same thing: the need for a public response to a public need, particularly in this time of great technological change and development. That’s the debate we have to have, as a nation: do we leave the chance creation of “public good” solely in the hands of the private sector or do we, proactively, identify what needs to be done and put a system in place to see that those needs are met—not only in a timely fashion but with creativity, with innovation, and with sufficient resources to ensure that every citizen is given access to the enrichment that new technologies can bring to life and learning? It’s our hope that when you talk to legislators on this level—confront them with the history of the Northwest Ordinance and the Morrill Act and the G.I. Bill—they’ll say to themselves, You know, that’s right. None of the benefits that were a direct result of those initiatives would have come about if there wasn’t a commitment on the part of the government to the public sphere. The Digital Investment Opportunity Trust is designed to do for education, in its broadest sense, what the National Science Foundation does for science, the National Institutes of Health do for medical research, and what ARPA (now known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA) does for defense." < http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/03/backpage/index.html > The organizations funding the Digital Promise Project are: < http://www.digitalpromise.org/funders.asp > Carnegie Corporation of New York The Century Foundation John S. and James L. Knight Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Open Society Institute OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION AGE: INVESTING IN E-LEARNING AND DIGITAL CONTENT -Tom Kalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley Tom Kalil examines the opportunities and challenges of an organization such as the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) must become. < http://www.digitalpromise.org/potential.asp > Summary of New America Foundation Forum on DO IT, held April 26, 2002, in Washington DC. "Because the airwaves are owned equally by all Americans, revenue from spectrum auctions and fees could be earmarked for reinvestment in new public assets for the digital era-including quality children's programming, educational innovation, digitizing our cultural inheritance, and expanding our civic discourse. A spectrum trust could help to fulfill the public interest obligations of broadcasters and other commercial spectrum users. A proposal to accomplish these ends, the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) follows in the footsteps of historic government reinvestments such as the Morrill Act, which established land-grant colleges (including many of today's leading research universities), and the G.I. Bill, both of which benefited all Americans by expanding access to higher education." < http://www.digitalpromise.org/april26summary.asp > The Digital Promise Report can be downloaded .pdf files < http://www.digitalpromise.org/report.asp > Endorsement Letter for CEOs An Open Letter to America’s Leaders: "As the CEOs of leading high-tech companies, we are writing to express our strong support for expanding our Nation’s investment in innovative digital content to support education and life-long learning. Although the United States has made major strides in connecting schools, libraries and community centers to the Internet, we have not yet made a significant investment in cutting-edge content that will truly transform learning. A recent proposal authored by Lawrence K. Grossman and Newton N. Minow for a “Digital Opportunities Investment Trust” would address this urgent need. Under this proposal, the revenues from spectrum auctions would be set aside to create the Digital Opportunities Investment Trust, which would be under the auspices of the National Science Foundation. The Trust would support partnerships between educational, cultural and civic organizations aimed at expanding the universe of knowledge accessible to every American, and fostering innovative uses of emerging digital technologies. Imagine if: * Students were able to more intuitively understand difficult concepts in calculus and physics, using software that effectively takes advantage of simulation and information visualization; * Every state had an active program to share its culture and history online, by digitizing manuscripts, photographs, recordings and three-dimensional objects from museums,libraries, archives, and historical societies; and * The 20 percent of adults who currently read at the 5 th grade level or below had access to a sophisticated “reading tutor” that understands human speech, recognizes common mistakes, and adapts to individual learning styles. These are just a few of the possibilities that might be created by this proposal. We are also convinced that it would serve as a catalyst for additional investment from the private sector, given the priority that our companies are placing on building a world-class workforce. Throughout our Nation’s history, we have made bold investments to ensure an educated citizenry. The Land Grant Colleges Act of 1862 created the world’s preeminent system of public higher education, and the GI Bill of 1944 profoundly expanded educational opportunities for more than 20 million men and women who fought in World War II. As we enter the 21 st century, the time is right to make a similar commitment to ensuring that all Americans benefit from the Information Age. We look forward to working with a broad alliance of people and institutions to implement this important initiative." < http://www.digitalpromise.org/supporting_groups.asp > What You Can Do To Help Sample letter of endorsement for the Digital Promise to your Senator or Representative < http://www.digitalpromise.org/SampleCongressionalletter.doc > Dear Senator ____________ I want to bring your attention to an important new educational initiative. In their book, A Digital Gift to the Nation, former NBC News and PBS president Larry Grossman and former FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow propose that the federal government establish an independent educational trust fund, financed by revenue from auctions of the publicly-owned electromagnetic spectrum. It follows the farsighted precedent of the Land-Grant Colleges Act of 1862, which provided revenue from publicly-owned land to finance public higher education. The Trust would stimulate innovative ideas and models designed to enhance learning, broaden knowledge, encourage an informed citizenry, bring the contents of the nation’s libraries, museums, universities and schools into the digital age, and help these institutions teach the skills and disciplines needed in an information-based economy. Creation of this fund could help transform education, training and learning in this country. They call this Trust the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT). I applaud their initiative and urge you and your staff to investigate these proposals and agree to join us in making DO IT a reality. More information is available on their website www.digitalpromise.org. I welcome your comments and am happy to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely, From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 23:13:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2BBC056FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9473756FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcauqn1.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.106.225] helo=D9KP0711) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17DJRn-0006Py-00 for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:30:07 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:52:55 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <006d01c20763$95a91c80$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Going back to a thread started by Chris Dent May 21, where he said should there be a list devoted to OHS specs and code, discussed in a focused fashion. There is not a lot of traffic on the unrev list at the moment, as far as I can see. May I propose that we use the BA-OHS-Talk list in the manner suggested by Chris Dent below, and that we move all other discussion to unrev? Please let us know how you feel about this. Can we reach a group consensus? Here's why I'm making the suggestion. Doug says he does want to participate in a focused discussion of the OHS specs and code. But it is in practice impossible for him to participate in the current style of discussion on the BA-OHS list. So there is a way I'm approaching this: 1. Keep the BA OHS discussion focused on the specs and code 2. Have a way to regularly raise the questions/issues raised in the OHS discussion to Doug, and get reasonable answers back to the list 3. Have transcripts of the discussion so that there is a source document to refer to, even if this is only available later. We are working to have a 2 hour worksession (by invitation only**) with him once a week in the Bootstrap office in Fremont, CA, in order to scope out the technical roadmap for the Hyperscope and OHS. I have no current estimate on how long this will take, or how well we will be able to integrate/connect/make productive these face to face sessions with the online discussion list. However, I think it is worth exploring, so I'm working on how we might pull it off. I think it involves developing good questions based on his BI2120 paper, getting answers and being prepared to go with him where the answers might take the discussion. Ideally we would develop a proto-dkr (dynamic knowledge repository) to record this information in some way in the process. I am going to see what we can do to record these sessions in audio or video form. We have a volunteer to do the transcriptions (MC - thank you on behalf of the group) so I feel some of the pieces are coming into place, though far from perfect, it is a start. If someone wants to come as moral support, and logistical support to video or tape the sessions that is a function we could use help in. ** When I say "by invitation" basically we want to keep the group very small and focused. Able to deal with the terms and conditions under which Doug wants to talk about this topic. In a separate post last week, I explained why I'm committed to this path, to allow self-selection among those who want to work with Doug, (engage actively with a visionary giant, even it if means a mental roller coaster ride) to just those who are prepared to work the way he feels is necessary. You don't have to know me to be invited, but you have to be prepared to deal with me as a gatekeeper. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just trying to stay focused on the task at hand. Mei Lin Chris Dent: I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to do the following to improve our infrastructure: - Create a ba-ohs-devel list where specifications and code can be discussed in a focussed fashion, leaving talk for things like licensing, sharing of links, tool ideas, implementation generalities, philophical meanderings related to an OHS. unrev-talk would be the place for still larger issues. A little rigorous self-moderating (in the "hey, move this to to unrev" sense) would be good. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Wed May 29 23:29:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6EEEE56FF3; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A8B456FF2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcauqn1.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.106.225] helo=D9KP0711) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17DJhD-0000q3-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:46:03 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Cc: "John Sechrest" Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] about a search engine on top of email archives Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:08:53 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <007401c20765$d0d9a110$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0075_01C2072B.247AC910" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C2072B.247AC910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I sent the message inquiring about the feasibility about the search engine to the webdev list (the volunteers working on the Bootstrap site). Dorai Thodla who is on the web-dev group said the following and I got his ok to post it to this list. YOu can build a search engine on top of email archives. That was one of the data types we were looking > at supporting for the first version of I-files. (Intermediate > files, part of the Hyperscope project) > > A message archive consists of messages that are semi-structured. The > header has a predictable structure and the detail needs to be indexed > using KWIC > (key word in context). Both of them are well known methods. > > Google already does that a bit with discussion boards. With something > like hyperscope we can go one step further. We can set up semantic > relationship > between threads, topics and follow on topics and build a more useful > result > set. > > > MLF: Now if we only had a Hyperscope.....(hum to the tune of "If I only had a brain" J ) > Mei Lin Fung ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C2072B.247AC910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I sent the message inquiring about the = feasibility about the search engine to the webdev list (the volunteers working on = the Bootstrap site).

 

Dorai Thodla who is on the web-dev group said = the following and I got his ok to post it to this list.

 

 

YOu can build a search engine on top of email archives.

That was one of the data types we were = looking

> at supporting for the first version of = I-files. (Intermediate

> files, part of the Hyperscope = project)

>

> A message archive consists of messages = that are semi-structured. The

> header has a predictable structure and = the detail needs to be indexed

> using KWIC

> (key word in context). Both of them are = well known methods.

>

> Google already does that a bit with = discussion boards. With something

> like hyperscope we can go one step = further. We can set up semantic

> relationship

> between threads, topics and follow on = topics and build a more useful

> result

> set.

>

>

> MLF: Now if we only had a = Hyperscope.....(hum to the tune of “If I only had a brain” J )

>

 

 

Mei Lin = Fung

 

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C2072B.247AC910-- From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 00:36:11 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8E16156FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 00:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com (web13308.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.44]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 335DD56FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 00:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020530075234.91209.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [149.225.54.53] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2002 00:52:34 PDT Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:52:34 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What's a HyperScope? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org > > How about the touchgraph purple number email > archive > > reader. You answer to nodes by clicking on the > > paragraph and a new response is created with the > > references. At least copied into the clipboard. > > I don't think I quite understand what you mean? Or > more > specifically, how does what you say fit into the > larger picture? I was thinking about the ability to view this email archive as a graph of references via the purple numbers. The list archive is already purplized, but it would be very comfortable to have a viewer so you can just click on a number and reference it. Sure you can do that in explorer, but my idea was to have a way to see the relationships between posts and how they evolve graphically. Like the touchgraph google grapher. > > What I was speaking of was a CGI tool for displaying > any web page, > from anywhere, with purple numbers. The CGI takes a > URL as input and > provides the page with purple numbers as output. To > make it work > well, it could also rewrite links in the translated > page as links > through the CGI. With that, you can live in a purple > numbered > universe and have improved document addressibility. that would also be great. As a CGI (is it perl?) this could be used as part of a mailling list filter, so you get all the mails purplized. That would also be a great help for the usage of the numbers. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 03:26:59 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id EFCD656FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 03:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37BD156FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 03:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:42:56 +0100 Message-ID: <3CF6020B.5020805@open.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:42:19 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words References: <20020529214009.27960.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org James Michael DuPont wrote: >>1. Tying it to current technologies in some way - it >>is a >>functional spec - we would need to pick out >>promising components out >>that as initial starting points > > I really like the touchgraph and would like to use it > personally as a basis for a next generation browser, > that and a callback handler for emacs and editing and > the ability to plug in new node generators and xrefs > systems. > > Added in a huge postgres database with all the nodes > store in there. > > What do you think? If you switch out the postgres database for Xindice and focus on authoring rather than browsing (though I don't differentiate the latter over the former given that authors regularly "browse" their own research materials and produced texts), then what you're describing is essentially what I'm working on with Ceryle, the project component of my Ph.D. program. This will be released into open source as the code and documentation stabilizes and becomes minimally functional for the tasks it was intended. It currently includes a TouchGraph implementation that displays topic map views of content. It's finalizing this latter component that is the next step. I'm just working on an Augmented Plain Text (APT) processor [1], which enables authoring of web documents from plain text sources. Now, I would mention that Ceryle is not intended to be a Hyperscope, in that while it can import plain text, HTML/XHTML and several other XML formats, I have no intention of importing Microsoft documents. Eliot Kimber's last big project did this, was installed in the State of Texas (can't remember which gov't department), and he demoed it last year. If you guys are really serious about a Hyperscope and want to take advantage of current work, I would contact Eliot. He's got 90% of the work you need already done, AFAIK. I think he and Lee Iverson have talked about this, though I'm not sure what's happened there. Murray [1] http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/ceryle/docs/NOTE-apt1.html ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 03:48:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 63F0956FF4; Thu, 30 May 2002 03:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33D5D56FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 03:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020530110455.21329.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [62.104.208.93] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:04:55 PDT Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 04:04:55 -0700 (PDT) From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3CF6020B.5020805@open.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org The # syntax looks like preprocessor, but a perl junkie like me is impressed. I like your approach. If you would like a beta tester, please let me know. mike ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 06:27:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BFCE756FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 630DE56FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GWX003WHFH9DI@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 06:44:00 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-reply-to: <006d01c20763$95a91c80$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mei-Lin -- "May I propose that we use the BA-OHS-Talk list in the manner suggested by Chris Dent below, and that we move all other discussion to unrev?" Excellent suggestion. You have my vote to implement immediately. Cheers, John John Maloney www.kmcluster.com Email: jtmalone@pacbell.net Tel: 415.902.9676 eFax: 415.276.6074 IM:jheuristic Create the Future! Join the KM Cluster -- http://www.kmcluster.com/register.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Mei Lin Fung Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:53 PM To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing Going back to a thread started by Chris Dent May 21, where he said should there be a list devoted to OHS specs and code, discussed in a focused fashion. There is not a lot of traffic on the unrev list at the moment, as far as I can see. May I propose that we use the BA-OHS-Talk list in the manner suggested by Chris Dent below, and that we move all other discussion to unrev? Please let us know how you feel about this. Can we reach a group consensus? Here's why I'm making the suggestion. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 06:49:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0FBD156FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B8D056FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 06:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 May 2002 15:05:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3CF63187.2070104@open.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:04:55 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > Mei-Lin -- > > "May I propose that we use the BA-OHS-Talk list in the manner > suggested by Chris Dent below, and that we move all other discussion to > unrev?" > > Excellent suggestion. You have my vote to implement immediately. So all discussions not directly pertinent to specification of the OHS should no longer occur here? I guess that means I'll be among those who will seem to disappear from view, as I am not on unrev and am truly weary of yet one more divisionary mailing list in what is really a small group of participants. The subject line was good enough for me as a filter of interest here. Until there are some major strides in how both idea and code contributions to "OHS" are handled (both licensing-wise and in terms of participatory process on specifications) I have little else to formally add to this group. While I was happy to contribute informally, I don't see dividing things up as a positive move, so unless I'm mistaking this suggestion, I'll go into lurk mode. bye for now, Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 08:00:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E0E7C56FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9052F56FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020530151711.NWIR13253.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 15:17:11 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020530081351.02346e30@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:14:39 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope and Launch plan - Doug's own words In-Reply-To: <3CF6020B.5020805@open.ac.uk> References: <20020529214009.27960.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 11:42 AM 5/30/2002 +0100, Murray wrote: >Now, I would mention that Ceryle is not intended to be a >Hyperscope, in that while it can import plain text, HTML/XHTML >and several other XML formats, I have no intention of importing >Microsoft documents. Eliot Kimber's last big project did this, >was installed in the State of Texas (can't remember which gov't >department), and he demoed it last year. If you guys are really >serious about a Hyperscope and want to take advantage of current >work, I would contact Eliot. He's got 90% of the work you need >already done, AFAIK. I think he and Lee Iverson have talked about >this, though I'm not sure what's happened there. http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/ "The POI project consists of APIs for manipulating various file formats based upon Microsoft's OLE 2 Compound Document format using pure Java. OLE 2 Compound Document Format based files include most Microsoft Office files such as XLS and DOC. " From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 16:48:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DB0BE56FF4; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC43056FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g4V04bp22310 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 19:04:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:04:37 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CF63187.2070104@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org (This post in honor of Jon Awbrey.) Murray, I'd hate to think that a suggestion of mine caused yet another valuable participant to slip out of view. I learn something from you just about every time you post, and that's why I'm participating: to learn things. However, it does seem like something needs to be done, especially if there is interest in getting Doug to participate. Your post suggests that the state of the mailing lists is not a major factor in participation, whereas licensing and process is. The process and license suggested by Doug and Mei Lin in other postings appear to be: - OHS, including the preliminary HyperScope, is GPL - participatory process involves - creating ideas on the list as focussed discussion - feeding them to Doug and some others on a weekly basis - refactoring the ideas based on feedback - coding prototypes of the ideas Is that a correct or incorrect interpretation? Is that a good or bad model? If that model is followed, is the current list situation okay? On Thu, 30 May 2002, Murray Altheim wrote: > So all discussions not directly pertinent to specification of the > OHS should no longer occur here? I guess that means I'll be among > those who will seem to disappear from view, as I am not on unrev > and am truly weary of yet one more divisionary mailing list in > what is really a small group of participants. The subject line was > good enough for me as a filter of interest here. > > Until there are some major strides in how both idea and code > contributions to "OHS" are handled (both licensing-wise and in > terms of participatory process on specifications) I have little > else to formally add to this group. While I was happy to > contribute informally, I don't see dividing things up as a > positive move, so unless I'm mistaking this suggestion, I'll go > into lurk mode. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 18:01:06 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 53D3F56FF4; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 530D756FF3 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcauqn1.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.106.225] helo=D9KP0711) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Db2f-0001Zw-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 21:17:22 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Cc: "'Lee Iverson'" Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] FW: BOUNCE ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org: Non-member submission from [Lee Iverson ] Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:40:12 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <015f01c20801$10850de0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Lee has a new email address so his latest contribution bounced. Shinya - could you add him? Thank you muchly. mlf -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:29 AM To: ba-ohs-talk-approval@bootstrap.org Subject: BOUNCE ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org: Non-member submission from [Lee Iverson ] From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bi0.bootstrap.org Thu May 30 10:29:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from priv-edtnes09-hme0.telusplanet.net (mtaout.telus.net [199.185.220.235]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4565256FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([66.183.117.94]) by priv-edtnes09-hme0.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.01 201-253-122-122-101-20011014) with ESMTP id <20020530174553.ZRWJ7991.priv-edtnes09-hme0.telusplanet.net@localhost>; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:45:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:45:57 -0700 Subject: Great article on XML Namespaces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Cc: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org To: nodal-j-devel@sf.net From: Lee Iverson Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <18AA0980-73F5-11D6-8D1B-0003934E3268@telus.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) A wonderful description of many of the issues surrounding XML Namespaces can be found both on Slashdot (a shortened version) and on the MSDN developers website at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en- us/dnexxml/html/xml05202002.asp Well worth the effort. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 18:07:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id AC56156FF7; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from carmine.bestweb.net (carmine.bestweb.net [209.94.102.73]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF93F56FF4 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kurtz-fernhout.com (dialin-1375-tnt.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.6.105]) by carmine.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A3D23060 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:25:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CF6D145.9325C6B8@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:26:29 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Mei Lin Fung wrote: > [Lost of good stuff snipped] > People who have been in Doug's orbit sometimes feel they understand > fully the problem and what needs to be done. Often that seems to involve > putting Doug on the shelf so that he stops making these troublesome > remarks that people can't understand. > > This is to do him a disservice, that's my opinion. He is not at a place > in his life where he wants to debate his ideas and plans, they have been > the product of 51 years of thinking. He just wants to do it and to work > with people that want to do it. What he wants to do has been outlined > in the OHS Launch Plan for the hyperscope, BI2120. > http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html [Trying to catch up a tiny bit...] Mei Lin- One major issue here is a fundamental contradiction between implementing the perfect OHS on the first pass, versus bootstrapping a population of tools capable of evolution. I don't think anyone here disrespects Doug's technical accomplishments or his social ones of getting creative people together. I don't think anyone here disrespects his vision for something good for humankind by enabling high performance teams capable of further bootstrapping (until transcendence?). It would be wonderful to see Doug's current vision for an OHS implemented as it is a distillation of years of experience and pondering, whether or not the current design is perfect. If you want to help him implement exactly that specification, and recruit others to do so, more power to you. Still, doing so would take considerable effort, and the question is who will make that investment and for what reasons -- given an estimate of the project's chances of success (in various ways) against how useful it will be and what is already out there. Much of the value of this list has been in seeing all the other things people have been doing, both for ideas and to avoid reinventing wheels (or at least, for me, to avoid reinventing other free wheels). I'm not ready to make that investment myself, in part (beyond licensing) because I have specific design issues with aspects of OHS design, which were raised quite a while back. (And frankly, I'm not up on all the latest discussion, so some of these issues may have been better addressed since then, either by Doug or various other contributors.) The most serious issue is in the notion of "Document" which I think needs further contemplation. For example, where do document boundaries end? How are documents composed of other components? How do documents change through time along with the system itself? How are documents merged? How are they split? Is the notion of "Document" really a valuable idea as opposed to say nested versioned hierarchies (e.g. OTI's Envy for Smalltalk) or networks with paragraphs at the base?) (These are related to some issues William Kent raises in "Data & Reality"). The second major design issue revolves around the notion of a link. While I think it makes sense to be able to use a system to move from a viewed concept to related items, it isn't clear what the best way to do that is, given the power of search engines (which can find all pages containing a text string) and that the link an author originally creates (say for a definition) may not reflect the current needs of the reader. Also, related to transcending links is the issue of distributed non-locational content. Design issues can be thrashed through and both of the above issues could probably be resolved in some form in a process that involves bootstrapping Doug's design (if license issues & permisison to use were resolved yada yada). Doug seems to have a gift for defining requirements, and the documents I look at seem more like requirements documents than architecture to me. To elaborate on how what is spelled out are requirements, one could say the system should be capable of helping people deal with things some people call documents -- even if documents don't exist in the system as such. Similarly, the system should support the author's intent in defining useful links -- but that does not mean that is necessarily the only sort of link or navigation the system might handle, or that internally the system will represent links as they are conventionally described these days in HTML syntax. This fundamental contradiction between implementing a perfect system in one pass versus bootstrapping a self-reflective one (is perhaps one reason people (including me) set off in entirely different directions rather than implement the OHS or Hyperscope spec. I, for one, remain respectfully always informed by Doug's vision, but perhaps not always movign things along in a way exactly as he planned. Also, such systems may tend to be perhaps nearly from scratch in various ways but using existing tools. This fundamental contradiction might also end up being reflected in the tools used and the tradeoffs (speed vs. storage vs. flexibility etc.) in and Bootstrappable architecture. It's a difficult set of challenges -- and there are schools of programming thought like "extreme programming" that argue to never put in any flexibility in the system because there are infinite ways you can do that so most of that effort will be wasted. I don't completely agree with that; I think every once in a while you see an elegant way to stay flexible. Frankly, it isn't clear to me from the OHS or Hyperscope specifications I have looked at, such as linked above, how evolving the system code itself in a bootstrapping way is easily doable (as opposed to evolving the textual content). I'm not saying it is impossible, just that the focus seems more on a great system to evolve populations of textual content, as opposed to a great framework for the evolution of populations of code. Granted, that is the need most people have for an OHS and what atttracts most peopel to the concept. There is a lot of content out there to deal with, not the least of which is this mailing list. That self-reflective aspect of the system isn't emphasized, such as it is with, say, Squeak Smalltalk (for all its other issues) or, say, Forth (the premier Bootstrapping computer language in some ways). Naturally, evolving code versus evolving content don't have to be in opposition (since code is content). What I am talking about here is more just an issue of focus and what aspects and levels of the system architecture one is talking most about. Still, I think the fundamental contradiction would ideally be addressed to lower the risk of any specific implementation approach. Just to give one tiny example in this direction (and to break my own rule about not posting code here until licensing is resolved...) ==================== [The following lines of code disclaimed to the public domain in an effort to be useful and to limit liability, and come with NO WARRANTY:] import org.python.util.*; import org.python.core.*; ... void OnRunPython() { PythonInterpreter interp = new PythonInterpreter(); String program = this.textEditor.getText(); interp.exec(program); } ==================== This the essence of a crystallized Java program that can bootstrap itself using Jython (Python in Java), even to the point of launching new windows, communicating over the internet, retrieving versions of its source from a database, and so on. There are other approaches, say by bootstrapping IBM's Eclipse Java development environment (or Sun's Netbeans, or GCC & Emacs, etc.). In any case, this is a code example related to resolving the contradiction... -Paul Fernhout == The Pointrel Foundation == Helping people understand nature, technology, and society == by developing networks of free digital libraries == and free software and free content to put in them. == http://www.pointrel.org From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 18:24:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id AC60856FF7; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E461156FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05154 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 19:40:24 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4V1eNv12680 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF6D49E.2D9DC128@sun.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:40:46 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> <3CF6D145.9325C6B8@kurtz-fernhout.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul Fernhout wrote: > ...the focus seems more on a great system to evolve populations of > textual content, as opposed to a great framework for the evolution of > populations of code.... Excellent insight. > That self-reflective aspect of the system isn't emphasized, such as it > is with, say, Squeak Smalltalk (for all its other issues) or, say, Forth > (the premier Bootstrapping computer language in some ways). Ah! A fellow Forth hacker. Should have known. :_) (On the other hand, SmallTalk completely baffled me...) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 18:32:09 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3F33256FF7; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B414F56FF5 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07679 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 19:48:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4V1mVv14854 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF6D686.E8D4BA38@sun.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:48:54 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] On having two lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Personally, I don't have a problem with two lists. I signed up for both, and everything that comes in goes to the same mailbox. When I reply, it automatically goes to the list it came from. When I send, I pick the one that seems most relevant. In essence, they are one list in my mailbox, with two different categories I can use to tag messages. I'd be happy to reserve ba-ohs-dev for use in the discussion of technical matters relating to the ba effort under development, whatever it happens to be at the time. That was its original purpose -- to provide a clear channel for the developers on that project to communicate about it. All other ideas, including weather control and alternative OHS-ish implemenation ideas, belong elsewhere. Again, given that I view the lists more as categorizing, rather than as any sort of division, I could see an argument for ba-ohs-talk (ohs/hyperscope implementation) other-ohs-tech (wide open, but technical) ba-unrev-talk (weather, etc.) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 21:05:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9D9C856FF5; Thu, 30 May 2002 21:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB3AC56FF3 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 21:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from attglobal.net ([63.202.177.96]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with ESMTP id <0GWY00MQSHG5KJ@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:30:17 -0700 From: Rod Welch Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <3CF6EE49.4A688A4C@attglobal.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> <3CF6D145.9325C6B8@kurtz-fernhout.com> Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Paul, Specifically on 001025 Doug called for developing technology that implements the OHS Launch plan.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#G3W8 ...that describes a Hyperscope, a DKR and a new work role for augmenting intelligence that improves handling of daily working information for solving world problems. Another thing Doug wants to accomplish is to foster a community that "bootstraps" its expertise by using existing technology, primarily through email to create a connected web of dialog and analysis that, over time, grows knowledge about how to augment intelligence and how to build technology that aids that objective.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#00VU So far these objectives have not been accomplished, except with SDS. On 001126 Eugene Kim recommended using IT with greater diligence to accomplish Doug's vision, rather than using SDS.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/11/26/214933.HTM#BY4K In addition, on 000623 Jack Park wanted to accomplish ontology tasks by building an "engine, so that knowledge work would be faster and easier than it is using current IT.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/06/23/114155.HTM#2915 This "engine" would accomplish Eric's goal of augmenting intelligence, which he identified based on Doug's vision, reported on 000423.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/04/23/114819.HTM#5933 Without being too long winded, there has been discussion about dialog maps, topic maps, outlining, IBIS and XML. Paul noticed recently that progress has been delayed because license issues prevent people from submitting actual code. Doug addressed this issue, and Mei Lin proposes rolling up our sleeves and getting to work, starting with new meetings were experts can listen to Doug and formulate a solution. Today, Paul raises important conceptual issues both on technology and on the business case relating to investing time. I like Paul's discussion about "documents." My sense is that since documents have been around for 2,000 years, books, articles, reports, correspondence like this letter, and so on will continue to be used for the foreseeable future We therefore need to develop ways that add value to information in documents. This raises the prospect of a new way of working with literacy for reading and writing. Since Doug proposes a new way of working and thinking on the Bootstrap website, reviewed on 991222.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/12/22/104523.HTM#3696 ...a new way of working with documents seems like a reasonable step to take. One approach that has evolved over the past 20 years or so is explained on 001219.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/12/19/071408.HTM#4W4L ...also, explained in POIMS... http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#3742 Since everyone will not agree, Paul's second point about the practical business considerations for creating a next generation technology is critical. What seems most evident is that (1) the design of KM is difficult, certainly counterintuitive, and (2) people are not willing to invest time to work on ideas they do not believe are effective. The whole concept of open source, that folks do what they want, is antithetical to innovative design. By definition innovation is "new," so people are ignorant and fearful about it until they gain experience. So, even if the design were given over, there is no hope it can be implemented without investment to buy people's time to work on things they believe will not work, until such time as they gain sufficient experience to learn about KM, as set out in POIMS. see for example the record on 961101... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/96/11/01/132459.HTM#L191740 In other words there is an innovation loop that can only be transcended through experience, and it takes money to buy time for people with the right kind of skills to gain that experience. This is evident from Eric's letter on 011003 saying people have to be paid to do KM, because it takes so much time using the tools everybody likes to use.... http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/10/03/160603.HTM#O73F Eric's point is evident from the failure of folks to link the record, as requested by Doug on 001025. If we are unwilling to do this simple step because it does not fit with the way we like to work, how can we hope to build tools that are different from the way we think they should work? Accordingly, I largely agree with Paul's second point. Hopefully, Paul, Jack, Eugene, Joe, Lee, Eric, and others will go ahead and develop their ideas and provide work product demonstrating added value for a new way of working that saves time and money. This will attract a critical mass of capabilities that accomplish Doug's vision for a DKR that uses an OHS and Hyperscope to implement the ABC improvement model, as Doug laid out on 001025, based on his writings the past half century. Rod *************** Paul Fernhout wrote: > > Mei Lin Fung wrote: > > [Lost of good stuff snipped] > > People who have been in Doug's orbit sometimes feel they understand > > fully the problem and what needs to be done. Often that seems to involve > > putting Doug on the shelf so that he stops making these troublesome > > remarks that people can't understand. > > > > This is to do him a disservice, that's my opinion. He is not at a place > > in his life where he wants to debate his ideas and plans, they have been > > the product of 51 years of thinking. He just wants to do it and to work > > with people that want to do it. What he wants to do has been outlined > > in the OHS Launch Plan for the hyperscope, BI2120. > > http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html > > [Trying to catch up a tiny bit...] > > Mei Lin- > > One major issue here is a fundamental contradiction between implementing > the perfect OHS on the first pass, versus bootstrapping a population of > tools capable of evolution. > > I don't think anyone here disrespects Doug's technical accomplishments > or his social ones of getting creative people together. I don't think > anyone here disrespects his vision for something good for humankind by > enabling high performance teams capable of further bootstrapping (until > transcendence?). It would be wonderful to see Doug's current vision for > an OHS implemented as it is a distillation of years of experience and > pondering, whether or not the current design is perfect. If you want to > help him implement exactly that specification, and recruit others to do > so, more power to you. > > Still, doing so would take considerable effort, and the question is who > will make that investment and for what reasons -- given an estimate of > the project's chances of success (in various ways) against how useful it > will be and what is already out there. Much of the value of this list > has been in seeing all the other things people have been doing, both for > ideas and to avoid reinventing wheels (or at least, for me, to avoid > reinventing other free wheels). > > I'm not ready to make that investment myself, in part (beyond licensing) > because I have specific design issues with aspects of OHS design, which > were raised quite a while back. (And frankly, I'm not up on all the > latest discussion, so some of these issues may have been better > addressed since then, either by Doug or various other contributors.) > > The most serious issue is in the notion of "Document" which I think > needs further contemplation. For example, where do document boundaries > end? How are documents composed of other components? How do documents > change through time along with the system itself? How are documents > merged? How are they split? Is the notion of "Document" really a > valuable idea as opposed to say nested versioned hierarchies (e.g. OTI's > Envy for Smalltalk) or networks with paragraphs at the base?) (These are > related to some issues William Kent raises in "Data & Reality"). > > The second major design issue revolves around the notion of a link. > While I think it makes sense to be able to use a system to move from a > viewed concept to related items, it isn't clear what the best way to do > that is, given the power of search engines (which can find all pages > containing a text string) and that the link an author originally creates > (say for a definition) may not reflect the current needs of the reader. > Also, related to transcending links is the issue of distributed > non-locational content. > > Design issues can be thrashed through and both of the above issues could > probably be resolved in some form in a process that involves > bootstrapping Doug's design (if license issues & permisison to use were > resolved yada yada). > > Doug seems to have a gift for defining requirements, and the documents I > look at seem more like requirements documents than architecture to me. > To elaborate on how what is spelled out are requirements, one could say > the system should be capable of helping people deal with things some > people call documents -- even if documents don't exist in the system as > such. Similarly, the system should support the author's intent in > defining useful links -- but that does not mean that is necessarily the > only sort of link or navigation the system might handle, or that > internally the system will represent links as they are conventionally > described these days in HTML syntax. > > This fundamental contradiction between implementing a perfect system in > one pass versus bootstrapping a self-reflective one (is perhaps one > reason people (including me) set off in entirely different directions > rather than implement the OHS or Hyperscope spec. I, for one, remain > respectfully always informed by Doug's vision, but perhaps not always > movign things along in a way exactly as he planned. > > Also, such systems may tend to be perhaps nearly from scratch in various > ways but using existing tools. This fundamental contradiction might > also end up being reflected in the tools used and the tradeoffs (speed > vs. storage vs. flexibility etc.) in and Bootstrappable architecture. > It's a difficult set of challenges -- and there are schools of > programming thought like "extreme programming" that argue to never put > in any flexibility in the system because there are infinite ways you can > do that so most of that effort will be wasted. I don't completely agree > with that; I think every once in a while you see an elegant way to stay > flexible. > > Frankly, it isn't clear to me from the OHS or Hyperscope specifications > I have looked at, such as linked above, how evolving the system code > itself in a bootstrapping way is easily doable (as opposed to evolving > the textual content). I'm not saying it is impossible, just that the > focus seems more on a great system to evolve populations of textual > content, as opposed to a great framework for the evolution of > populations of code. Granted, that is the need most people have for an > OHS and what atttracts most peopel to the concept. There is a lot of > content out there to deal with, not the least of which is this mailing > list. > > That self-reflective aspect of the system isn't emphasized, such as it > is with, say, Squeak Smalltalk (for all its other issues) or, say, Forth > (the premier Bootstrapping computer language in some ways). Naturally, > evolving code versus evolving content don't have to be in opposition > (since code is content). What I am talking about here is more just an > issue of focus and what aspects and levels of the system architecture > one is talking most about. > > Still, I think the fundamental contradiction would ideally be addressed > to lower the risk of any specific implementation approach. > > Just to give one tiny example in this direction (and to break my own > rule about not posting code here until licensing is resolved...) > > ==================== > > [The following lines of code disclaimed to the public domain in an > effort to be useful and to limit liability, and come with NO WARRANTY:] > > import org.python.util.*; > import org.python.core.*; > > ... > > void OnRunPython() > { > PythonInterpreter interp = new PythonInterpreter(); > String program = this.textEditor.getText(); > interp.exec(program); > } > > ==================== > > This the essence of a crystallized Java program that can bootstrap > itself using Jython (Python in Java), even to the point of launching new > windows, communicating over the internet, retrieving versions of its > source from a database, and so on. > > There are other approaches, say by bootstrapping IBM's Eclipse Java > development environment (or Sun's Netbeans, or GCC & Emacs, etc.). > > In any case, this is a code example related to resolving the > contradiction... > > -Paul Fernhout > == The Pointrel Foundation > == Helping people understand nature, technology, and society > == by developing networks of free digital libraries > == and free software and free content to put in them. > == http://www.pointrel.org From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Thu May 30 23:20:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1EF5756FF3; Thu, 30 May 2002 23:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91D1156FF2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 23:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29618 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 00:36:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4V6aZv19657 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF71A0B.389FA588@sun.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:36:59 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] What are we trying to accomplish? References: <000001c20387$340423b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> <3CF6D145.9325C6B8@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3CF6EE49.4A688A4C@attglobal.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Incredible, Rod. You continually amaze with your ability to access the record. If we had tools of the kind you have developed, I believe we *would* use them. (I've only quarreled with having to link to everything, instead of incorporating it, but hey...) :_) Rod Welch wrote: > Paul, > > Specifically on 001025 Doug called for developing technology that > implements the OHS Launch plan.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#G3W8 > > ...that describes a Hyperscope, a DKR and a new work role for > augmenting intelligence that improves handling of daily working > information for solving world problems. > > Another thing Doug wants to accomplish is to foster a community that > "bootstraps" its expertise by using existing technology, primarily > through email to create a connected web of dialog and analysis that, > over time, grows knowledge about how to augment intelligence and how > to build technology that aids that objective.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#00VU > > So far these objectives have not been accomplished, except with SDS. > On 001126 Eugene Kim recommended using IT with greater diligence to > accomplish Doug's vision, rather than using SDS.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/11/26/214933.HTM#BY4K > > In addition, on 000623 Jack Park wanted to accomplish ontology tasks > by building an "engine, so that knowledge work would be faster and > easier than it is using current IT.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/06/23/114155.HTM#2915 > > This "engine" would accomplish Eric's goal of augmenting intelligence, > which he identified based on Doug's vision, reported on 000423.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/04/23/114819.HTM#5933 > > Without being too long winded, there has been discussion about dialog > maps, topic maps, outlining, IBIS and XML. > > Paul noticed recently that progress has been delayed because license > issues prevent people from submitting actual code. Doug addressed > this issue, and Mei Lin proposes rolling up our sleeves and getting to > work, starting with new meetings were experts can listen to Doug and > formulate a solution. > > Today, Paul raises important conceptual issues both on technology and > on the business case relating to investing time. > > I like Paul's discussion about "documents." > > My sense is that since documents have been around for 2,000 years, > books, articles, reports, correspondence like this letter, and so on > will continue to be used for the foreseeable future We therefore need > to develop ways that add value to information in documents. This > raises the prospect of a new way of working with literacy for reading > and writing. Since Doug proposes a new way of working and thinking on > the Bootstrap website, reviewed on 991222.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/12/22/104523.HTM#3696 > > ...a new way of working with documents seems like a reasonable step to > take. > > One approach that has evolved over the past 20 years or so is > explained on 001219.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/12/19/071408.HTM#4W4L > > ...also, explained in POIMS... > > http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#3742 > > Since everyone will not agree, Paul's second point about the practical > business considerations for creating a next generation technology is > critical. > > What seems most evident is that (1) the design of KM is difficult, > certainly counterintuitive, and (2) people are not willing to invest > time to work on ideas they do not believe are effective. The whole > concept of open source, that folks do what they want, is antithetical > to innovative design. By definition innovation is "new," so people > are ignorant and fearful about it until they gain experience. > > So, even if the design were given over, there is no hope it can be > implemented without investment to buy people's time to work on things > they believe will not work, until such time as they gain sufficient > experience to learn about KM, as set out in POIMS. see for example the > record on 961101... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/96/11/01/132459.HTM#L191740 > > In other words there is an innovation loop that can only be > transcended through experience, and it takes money to buy time for > people with the right kind of skills to gain that experience. > > This is evident from Eric's letter on 011003 saying people have to be > paid to do KM, because it takes so much time using the tools everybody > likes to use.... > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/10/03/160603.HTM#O73F > > Eric's point is evident from the failure of folks to link the record, > as requested by Doug on 001025. If we are unwilling to do this simple > step because it does not fit with the way we like to work, how can we > hope to build tools that are different from the way we think they > should work? > > Accordingly, I largely agree with Paul's second point. > > Hopefully, Paul, Jack, Eugene, Joe, Lee, Eric, and others will go > ahead and develop their ideas and provide work product demonstrating > added value for a new way of working that saves time and money. This > will attract a critical mass of capabilities that accomplish Doug's > vision for a DKR that uses an OHS and Hyperscope to implement the ABC > improvement model, as Doug laid out on 001025, based on his writings > the past half century. > > Rod > > *************** > > Paul Fernhout wrote: > > > > Mei Lin Fung wrote: > > > [Lost of good stuff snipped] > > > People who have been in Doug's orbit sometimes feel they understand > > > fully the problem and what needs to be done. Often that seems to involve > > > putting Doug on the shelf so that he stops making these troublesome > > > remarks that people can't understand. > > > > > > This is to do him a disservice, that's my opinion. He is not at a place > > > in his life where he wants to debate his ideas and plans, they have been > > > the product of 51 years of thinking. He just wants to do it and to work > > > with people that want to do it. What he wants to do has been outlined > > > in the OHS Launch Plan for the hyperscope, BI2120. > > > http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/BI/2120.html > > > > [Trying to catch up a tiny bit...] > > > > Mei Lin- > > > > One major issue here is a fundamental contradiction between implementing > > the perfect OHS on the first pass, versus bootstrapping a population of > > tools capable of evolution. > > > > I don't think anyone here disrespects Doug's technical accomplishments > > or his social ones of getting creative people together. I don't think > > anyone here disrespects his vision for something good for humankind by > > enabling high performance teams capable of further bootstrapping (until > > transcendence?). It would be wonderful to see Doug's current vision for > > an OHS implemented as it is a distillation of years of experience and > > pondering, whether or not the current design is perfect. If you want to > > help him implement exactly that specification, and recruit others to do > > so, more power to you. > > > > Still, doing so would take considerable effort, and the question is who > > will make that investment and for what reasons -- given an estimate of > > the project's chances of success (in various ways) against how useful it > > will be and what is already out there. Much of the value of this list > > has been in seeing all the other things people have been doing, both for > > ideas and to avoid reinventing wheels (or at least, for me, to avoid > > reinventing other free wheels). > > > > I'm not ready to make that investment myself, in part (beyond licensing) > > because I have specific design issues with aspects of OHS design, which > > were raised quite a while back. (And frankly, I'm not up on all the > > latest discussion, so some of these issues may have been better > > addressed since then, either by Doug or various other contributors.) > > > > The most serious issue is in the notion of "Document" which I think > > needs further contemplation. For example, where do document boundaries > > end? How are documents composed of other components? How do documents > > change through time along with the system itself? How are documents > > merged? How are they split? Is the notion of "Document" really a > > valuable idea as opposed to say nested versioned hierarchies (e.g. OTI's > > Envy for Smalltalk) or networks with paragraphs at the base?) (These are > > related to some issues William Kent raises in "Data & Reality"). > > > > The second major design issue revolves around the notion of a link. > > While I think it makes sense to be able to use a system to move from a > > viewed concept to related items, it isn't clear what the best way to do > > that is, given the power of search engines (which can find all pages > > containing a text string) and that the link an author originally creates > > (say for a definition) may not reflect the current needs of the reader. > > Also, related to transcending links is the issue of distributed > > non-locational content. > > > > Design issues can be thrashed through and both of the above issues could > > probably be resolved in some form in a process that involves > > bootstrapping Doug's design (if license issues & permisison to use were > > resolved yada yada). > > > > Doug seems to have a gift for defining requirements, and the documents I > > look at seem more like requirements documents than architecture to me. > > To elaborate on how what is spelled out are requirements, one could say > > the system should be capable of helping people deal with things some > > people call documents -- even if documents don't exist in the system as > > such. Similarly, the system should support the author's intent in > > defining useful links -- but that does not mean that is necessarily the > > only sort of link or navigation the system might handle, or that > > internally the system will represent links as they are conventionally > > described these days in HTML syntax. > > > > This fundamental contradiction between implementing a perfect system in > > one pass versus bootstrapping a self-reflective one (is perhaps one > > reason people (including me) set off in entirely different directions > > rather than implement the OHS or Hyperscope spec. I, for one, remain > > respectfully always informed by Doug's vision, but perhaps not always > > movign things along in a way exactly as he planned. > > > > Also, such systems may tend to be perhaps nearly from scratch in various > > ways but using existing tools. This fundamental contradiction might > > also end up being reflected in the tools used and the tradeoffs (speed > > vs. storage vs. flexibility etc.) in and Bootstrappable architecture. > > It's a difficult set of challenges -- and there are schools of > > programming thought like "extreme programming" that argue to never put > > in any flexibility in the system because there are infinite ways you can > > do that so most of that effort will be wasted. I don't completely agree > > with that; I think every once in a while you see an elegant way to stay > > flexible. > > > > Frankly, it isn't clear to me from the OHS or Hyperscope specifications > > I have looked at, such as linked above, how evolving the system code > > itself in a bootstrapping way is easily doable (as opposed to evolving > > the textual content). I'm not saying it is impossible, just that the > > focus seems more on a great system to evolve populations of textual > > content, as opposed to a great framework for the evolution of > > populations of code. Granted, that is the need most people have for an > > OHS and what atttracts most peopel to the concept. There is a lot of > > content out there to deal with, not the least of which is this mailing > > list. > > > > That self-reflective aspect of the system isn't emphasized, such as it > > is with, say, Squeak Smalltalk (for all its other issues) or, say, Forth > > (the premier Bootstrapping computer language in some ways). Naturally, > > evolving code versus evolving content don't have to be in opposition > > (since code is content). What I am talking about here is more just an > > issue of focus and what aspects and levels of the system architecture > > one is talking most about. > > > > Still, I think the fundamental contradiction would ideally be addressed > > to lower the risk of any specific implementation approach. > > > > Just to give one tiny example in this direction (and to break my own > > rule about not posting code here until licensing is resolved...) > > > > ==================== > > > > [The following lines of code disclaimed to the public domain in an > > effort to be useful and to limit liability, and come with NO WARRANTY:] > > > > import org.python.util.*; > > import org.python.core.*; > > > > ... > > > > void OnRunPython() > > { > > PythonInterpreter interp = new PythonInterpreter(); > > String program = this.textEditor.getText(); > > interp.exec(program); > > } > > > > ==================== > > > > This the essence of a crystallized Java program that can bootstrap > > itself using Jython (Python in Java), even to the point of launching new > > windows, communicating over the internet, retrieving versions of its > > source from a database, and so on. > > > > There are other approaches, say by bootstrapping IBM's Eclipse Java > > development environment (or Sun's Netbeans, or GCC & Emacs, etc.). > > > > In any case, this is a code example related to resolving the > > contradiction... > > > > -Paul Fernhout > > == The Pointrel Foundation > > == Helping people understand nature, technology, and society > > == by developing networks of free digital libraries > > == and free software and free content to put in them. > > == http://www.pointrel.org From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 04:33:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BDC6156FF3; Fri, 31 May 2002 04:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D961A56FF2 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 04:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.ac.uk (actually host dhcp-kmi-332.open.ac.uk) by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: <3CF762F3.30806@open.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:48:03 +0100 From: Murray Altheim Organization: Knowledge Media Institute User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org cdent wrote: > (This post in honor of Jon Awbrey.) I take it you're on the PORT or SUO lists. If you are unaware, Jon and I are working together on some tools to assist him in creating web content. The results, called an Augmented Plain Text processor, take plaintext content with a few short codes to indicate headings and converts it into valid XHTML, complete with a TOC and properly indented divisions. This is part of the Ceryle project, soon to be delivered. (Jon is my seemingly-willing guinea pig...) > Murray, > > I'd hate to think that a suggestion of mine caused yet another > valuable participant to slip out of view. I learn something from > you just about every time you post, and that's why I'm > participating: to learn things. Well, Chris, I am flattered by your comments, but I should perhaps correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. I'm not unsubscribing from the list, I'm just going into lurk mode until some measure of a more formalized process is worked out, such that what happens to many of the ideas expounded upon on the mailing list has been made more clear. This is of serious concern to me, as this should be to all of us. No, no slip on your part - the licensing discussion was taking its toll; your comments merely brought me to publicly state what I had been planning anyway. > However, it does seem like something needs to be done, especially > if there is interest in getting Doug to participate. Your post > suggests that the state of the mailing lists is not a major > factor in participation, whereas licensing and process is. > > The process and license suggested by Doug and Mei Lin in other > postings appear to be: > > - OHS, including the preliminary HyperScope, is GPL > - participatory process involves > - creating ideas on the list as focussed discussion > - feeding them to Doug and some others on a weekly basis > - refactoring the ideas based on feedback > - coding prototypes of the ideas > > Is that a correct or incorrect interpretation? Is that a good or > bad model? > > If that model is followed, is the current list situation okay? I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with any of what you've written, but none of it is formal. And it doesn't satisfy what's been stated as necessary for this list, which is to start working on an OHS specification. I don't have a quibble with the list being used for that. It's just that there have been quite a lot of good ideas floating around here, with any clever business person able to take these ideas and go to market with them. That would be fine if that is the understanding, but I am not willing to participate in such an endeavour simply in order to help make someone some money. I used to get paid good money for doing that. If we aren't necessarily advancing the OHS (which perhaps we are, perhaps we're not -- that remains to be seen) and if the process and license aren't worked out, then it seems we're a. not moving forward, and b. giving away our gold needlessly. This might seem a bit strange from someone who has publicly stated that he's planning on giving away his ideas (as part of Ceryle and my Ph.D. program), but I consider that rather differently. I've been rather critical of the W3C's process at times, since I've seen that process really abused, and I had never thought it a good process to begin with -- it has improved somewhat, though last time I heard they were again in a quagmire over IPR rights and licensing. Microsoft, IBM, and other big companies are playing ugly games with IPR and I'm hesitant nowadays. I didn't like the fact that my works were owned by Sun, even works that Sun didn't request of me as part of my job. The rights to my own work was one of the reasons I left. With the W3C, I never liked working under its dictatorship, but at least it has a formal process that to a respectable degree protects the intellectual investment of its players, who demand this (as both large and small companies with IP investments in both people and ideas). We need that here. But I (actually) don't mean to preach. I merely mean to step into lurk mode until some reasonable process has been agreed upon in this regard. I think it kind of pointless for us non-lawyers to continue to argue about licensing. Until there is a formalized process, each of us participating here simply has to consider what ideas (if any) we give away. I don't think this is particularly selfish, perhaps it's more unselfish in the end. I just don't want to be giving away (for free) all these ideas, if some corporation will just take them to the bank. If we're going to do that, we should at least understand that we are. It is just a bit too hazy for my taste right now. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 08:55:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6AEC256FF3; Fri, 31 May 2002 08:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBCEC56FF2 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 08:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020531161207.TOKZ29266.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:12:07 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020531084821.02487ad0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:09:16 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CF762F3.30806@open.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Very thoughtful and articulate, both Murray and Chris. I like to think that there really is something going on now that just might prove to be the activity necessary to get a proper OHS, Doug's own vision, that is, off the ground. On licensing, Eugene Kim articulated a position http://www.eekim.com/ohs/attic/whybsd.html that, to the best of my recollection, serves as a valuable interpretation of the discussions a group here in the Silicon Valley, which included the Doug himself, had. My recollections (which, btw, are subject to senior moments) tell me that we decided that something akin to the Apache (http://www.apache.org) license was more than sufficient, though there has been some added discussions about the incorporation of additional legal matter that would try to prevent users of the OHS license from obtaining patents that could block the evolution of OHS in any direction. Doug's vision, at least my interpretation of it, is that OHS should be completely free to evolve in any direction necessary to serve those needs of humanity for which it is created. What, then, is going on now? At this point in time, Mei Lin Fung has taken a position of leadership in guiding the internal affairs associated with the Bootstrap Alliance and its goal to facilitate the facilitated evolution of OHS (pretty meta, what?) and its practical application. These goals are centered around Doug's vision, and not necessarily related to the various visions others (like me) bring to the table. As she stated earlier, Doug has had dozens of years to ruminate on the topics of interest here, and it is time to permit him to see those expressed in working software. None of that is to say that those of us with hair-brained ideas of our own should not pursue those ideas. Indeed, I, for one, continue to hack away at expressions of my own ideas at a furious rate. I would like to think that once the evolutionary process is started, and when Doug's ideas are, indeed, being tested, then the advantages of cross pollination from external projects will greatly benefit all of us. It is my opinion that email lists are not a particularly efficient way to conduct collaborative design. They are great for exchanging random bits of information, some of which contribute to evolution of ideas, but they are not structured enough to sustain an effort to get a design 'out the door'. It is to Eric Armstrong's credit that I and others on this list have discovered and begun to develop tools that support IBIS. I'd like to think that we will find a way to begin using IBIS in support of the evolution of an OHS. Certainly, r-objects.com's Pepper could bring that online today. My 0.02 EUROs for the day. Jack At 12:48 PM 5/31/2002 +0100, you wrote: >cdent wrote: > >>(This post in honor of Jon Awbrey.) > > >I take it you're on the PORT or SUO lists. If you are unaware, Jon >and I are working together on some tools to assist him in creating >web content. The results, called an Augmented Plain Text processor, >take plaintext content with a few short codes to indicate headings > >and converts it into valid XHTML, complete with a TOC and properly >indented divisions. This is part of the Ceryle project, soon to be > >delivered. (Jon is my seemingly-willing guinea pig...) > > >>Murray, >>I'd hate to think that a suggestion of mine caused yet another >>valuable participant to slip out of view. I learn something from >>you just about every time you post, and that's why I'm >>participating: to learn things. > > >Well, Chris, I am flattered by your comments, but I should perhaps >correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. I'm not unsubscribing >from the list, I'm just going into lurk mode until some measure of >a more formalized process is worked out, such that what happens to >many of the ideas expounded upon on the mailing list has been made >more clear. This is of serious concern to me, as this should be to >all of us. No, no slip on your part - the licensing discussion was >taking its toll; your comments merely brought me to publicly state >what I had been planning anyway. > > >>However, it does seem like something needs to be done, especially >>if there is interest in getting Doug to participate. Your post >>suggests that the state of the mailing lists is not a major >>factor in participation, whereas licensing and process is. >>The process and license suggested by Doug and Mei Lin in other >>postings appear to be: >>- OHS, including the preliminary HyperScope, is GPL >>- participatory process involves >> - creating ideas on the list as focussed discussion >> - feeding them to Doug and some others on a weekly basis >> - refactoring the ideas based on feedback >> - coding prototypes of the ideas >>Is that a correct or incorrect interpretation? Is that a good or >>bad model? >>If that model is followed, is the current list situation okay? > > >I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with any of what >you've written, but none of it is formal. And it doesn't satisfy >what's been stated as necessary for this list, which is to start >working on an OHS specification. I don't have a quibble with the >list being used for that. It's just that there have been quite a >lot of good ideas floating around here, with any clever business >person able to take these ideas and go to market with them. That >would be fine if that is the understanding, but I am not willing >to participate in such an endeavour simply in order to help make >someone some money. I used to get paid good money for doing that. >If we aren't necessarily advancing the OHS (which perhaps we are, >perhaps we're not -- that remains to be seen) and if the process >and license aren't worked out, then it seems we're a. not moving >forward, and b. giving away our gold needlessly. > >This might seem a bit strange from someone who has publicly >stated that he's planning on giving away his ideas (as part >of Ceryle and my Ph.D. program), but I consider that rather >differently. I've been rather critical of the W3C's process >at times, since I've seen that process really abused, and I >had never thought it a good process to begin with -- it has >improved somewhat, though last time I heard they were again >in a quagmire over IPR rights and licensing. Microsoft, IBM, >and other big companies are playing ugly games with IPR and >I'm hesitant nowadays. I didn't like the fact that my works >were owned by Sun, even works that Sun didn't request of me >as part of my job. The rights to my own work was one of the >reasons I left. > >With the W3C, I never liked working under its dictatorship, >but at least it has a formal process that to a respectable >degree protects the intellectual investment of its players, >who demand this (as both large and small companies with IP >investments in both people and ideas). We need that here. > >But I (actually) don't mean to preach. I merely mean >to step into lurk mode until some reasonable process >has been agreed upon in this regard. I think it kind >of pointless for us non-lawyers to continue to argue >about licensing. Until there is a formalized process, >each of us participating here simply has to consider >what ideas (if any) we give away. I don't think this >is particularly selfish, perhaps it's more unselfish >in the end. I just don't want to be giving away (for >free) all these ideas, if some corporation will just >take them to the bank. If we're going to do that, we >should at least understand that we are. It is just a >bit too hazy for my taste right now. > >Murray > >...................................................................... >Murray Altheim >Knowledge Media Institute >The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK > > In the evening > The rice leaves in the garden > Rustle in the autumn wind > That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 09:25:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 703E056FF4; Fri, 31 May 2002 09:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1582556FF3 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 09:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17DpTH-00082z-00 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 09:41:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:41:46 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Hyperscope Launch Plan & The Digital Promise Project: A Digital Gift to the Nation Message-ID: <20020531164146.GA29905@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org References: <3CF58307.6CB5DF9D@netzero.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CF58307.6CB5DF9D@netzero.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org * John J. Deneen [020529 18:46]: > Using part of the proceeds derived from the sale of wireless frequencies > in the electromagnetic spectrum to underwrite the development of new > content is long overdue and is an idea whose time has certainly come. > < http://www.digitalpromise.org/events.asp > and gone... -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 11:09:00 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4F68D56FF3; Fri, 31 May 2002 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA61356FF2 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 11:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020531182527.EXNK11183.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 18:25:27 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020531112229.02363380@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:23:01 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] ANN: Ool - Out-of-line Markup Tools Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org >From: "Simon St.Laurent" >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > >I've released an initial version of Ool, a set of Java SAX filters for >working with out-of-line markup in XML. > >http://simonstl.com/projects/ool/ > >Ool can separate XML documents into files containing their markup and >their (element) text, using ool:text elements to indicate which part of >the text file goes where in the document. It can also reconstruct >documents from the separate markup and text files. (The incomplete >portion optimizes the representation of where the text goes, but I've >not had time...) > >Ool is not (yet) a means for realizing the hypertext dreams of Ted >"Embedded Markup Considered Harmful" Nelson, but it may be a framework >for experimentation on such things. > >The filter for recombining text and markup is also handy for textual >inclusions whether or not they came from the separator - effectively >it's a text-only includer which uses character locations for start and >end-points. > >As a bit of a bonus, there's also a SAX filter which abolishes mixed >content through the handy expedient of wrapping the odd bits of text >(those which have element siblings) in elements conveniently named >"mix:ed". This may prove useful for constraining mixed content using >DTDs and W3C XML Schema in ways which are not presently possible. (RELAX >NG needs no such assistance.) > >I do plan to work on this further, and port it to MOE (where many of the >optimizations should be much simpler), but it'll be a little while. I'm >editing too much to get time to focus on programming. > >-- >Simon St.Laurent >Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets >Errors, errors, all fall down! >http://simonstl.com > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an >initiative of OASIS > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 11:50:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A487756FF4; Fri, 31 May 2002 11:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC13756FF3 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 11:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10246 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 13:07:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4VJ71j07405 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:07:26 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing References: <4.2.2.20020531084821.02487ad0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > ... > It is my opinion that email lists are not a particularly efficient way to > conduct collaborative design. Have to agree. > ... > It is to Eric Armstrong's credit that I and others on this list > have discovered and begun to develop tools that support IBIS. Thanks for the mention, Jack. I'll take credit for pushing it. But it was your post that brought it to my attention. I wish I had the time to investigate all of your other posts! I'd probably be a lot better educated than I am today. > I'd like to think that we will find a way to begin using IBIS in support of > the > evolution of an OHS. Certainly, r-objects.com's Pepper could bring that > online today. Whoa! Why didn't I take a closer look at that earlier. That looks killer! See http://www.r-objects.com/products/pepper/gallery/ I think it will take some social rules (I have no idea what kind) to know when to move to email for a discussion, and when to move back to Pepper to capture pieces of it, but if IBIS will work, this looks like a great way to test it. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 12:03:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D340156FF8; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6640C56FF7 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.5] ([12.234.196.149]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020531192018.QUEC2751.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@[192.168.100.5]> for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 19:20:18 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jernst@mail.r-objects.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> References: <4.2.2.20020531084821.02487ad0@thinkalong.com> <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:20:15 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Johannes Ernst Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org We appreciate the reference! Not only can Pepper be used as an IBIS tool, it is also intended to be a platform for anything from explorative to production development of new "knowledge tools", as many of the people on this list intend to do. Implementing IBIS on top of Pepper -- which is what Eric is referring to -- took just a few hours, and most of that time was taken with designing icons for the objects ... Note that even today, all Pepper source code is available for inspection and modification for registered developers. Some of you on this list may be aware of on-going discussions between Bootstrap and R-Objects on how Pepper could be made available to various stakeholders of the Bootstrap Alliance. So yes, that thought has appeared before and we're on it ... Cheers, Johannes Ernst R-Objects Inc. At 12:07 -0700 2002/05/31, Eric Armstrong wrote: >Jack Park wrote: > > I'd like to think that we will find a way to begin using IBIS in support of >> the >> evolution of an OHS. Certainly, r-objects.com's Pepper could bring that >> online today. > >Whoa! Why didn't I take a closer look at that earlier. >That looks killer! See >http://www.r-objects.com/products/pepper/gallery/ > >I think it will take some social rules (I have no idea what kind) to >know when to move to email for a discussion, and when to move >back to Pepper to capture pieces of it, but if IBIS will work, this >looks like a great way to test it. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 12:04:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E58D756FF9; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7470B56FF8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020531192127.GMTF11183.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 19:21:27 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020531121114.02573e10@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:19:01 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-Reply-To: <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> References: <4.2.2.20020531084821.02487ad0@thinkalong.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 12:07 PM 5/31/2002 -0700, Eric wrote: >I think it will take some social rules (I have no idea what kind) to >know when to move to email for a discussion, and when to move >back to Pepper to capture pieces of it, but if IBIS will work, this >looks like a great way to test it. Quite right. I suspect there needs to be combinations of communications: areas where you are focused on some particular issue, and areas where you are hashing around vague notions of greatness, which, if done within IBIS, would likely clog that system and render it useless (or words to that effect). Of great interest to me is the notion of using IBIS in an asynchronous mode. Jeff Conklin's practice is largely synchronous (f2f, in meetings), near as I can tell, but f2f meetings are not always possible, particularly with a widely distributed network of participants. Perhaps such an IBIS design process will necessarily be moderated, giving some entity (person or group) the right to nuke posts that are not germain to the particular branch of the discussion tree (or perhaps moving things around to suit), and, as has been suggested on this list before, providing summaries of branches, making decisions (perhaps, thus, closing branches to further discussion), and so forth. I'd still argue that email may not satisfy the larger. I suspect that a discussion board that offers relational views, along the lines visible at http://www.memes.net, but (here I'm not sure) quite possibly also available in Pepper, would be appropriate. I've been building prototypes along these lines. Perhaps the killer ap lies hidden in an email client that handles XML-structured posts such that one could subscribe to a branch of an IBIS tree and respond from an email client. I've been thinking along these lines as well. Jack From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 12:12:06 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4E74656FFA; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D391056FF9 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020531192834.JUDU20219.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 19:28:34 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020531122012.02490b00@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:26:07 -0700 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing In-Reply-To: References: <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> <4.2.2.20020531084821.02487ad0@thinkalong.com> <3CF7C9EE.3BCFB685@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org At 12:20 PM 5/31/2002 -0700, Johannes wrote: >Some of you on this list may be aware of on-going discussions between >Bootstrap and R-Objects on how Pepper could be made available to various >stakeholders of the Bootstrap Alliance. So yes, that thought has appeared >before and we're on it ... I see what Johannes is doing as an (evolutionary) exploration of a branch of open source as we now know it. I mentioned earlier that Jason Hunter has a license that essentially says: you can use this source code so long as you own a copy of my book. My interpretation of what Johannes is doing in allowing users access to the code lies along the same, or a greatly similar branch of licensing thinking. Were I not so busy building my own toys, I'd likely jump in and play with Pepper. Oddly enough, that stance is, in my view, one of the great inhibitors to the free-flow of creativity in our community. I simply cannot take the risk of infecting my code with ideas I got from viewing Pepper's code, even though I know that Pepper has solved tough problems I face as well. Personally, I think I just opened one helluva topic for an IBIS discussion. Jack From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 13:01:42 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3CD2256FF2; Fri, 31 May 2002 13:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E370E56FF2; Fri, 31 May 2002 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcauqn1.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.106.225] helo=D9KP0711) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17DsqQ-0001Vs-00; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:17:54 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: , Cc: , Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Licensing and Permission to Use Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 05:40:49 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <01e401c208a0$6547f780$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org The licensing topic is vast and evolving, and we are at the very beginning. This update serves to let everyone know where we are starting from. Jack Park pretty well summed it up in his post on May 31, 2002 to the ba-ohs-talk list, (relevant paragraph reproduced below). Below Jack's post is an update. It seems more than appropriate at this time to express, on behalf of the CPC, our gratitude to Eugene Eric Kim for his invaluable contribution to the formation and emergence of the fledgling CPC in many areas, not least of which is his thought leadership, deep expertise and guidance in the evolving field of open source licensing and free software. Jack Park "On licensing, Eugene Kim articulated a position http://www.eekim.com/ohs/attic/whybsd.html that, to the best of my recollection, serves as a valuable interpretation of the discussions a group here in the Silicon Valley, which included the Doug himself, had. My recollections (which, btw, are subject to senior moments) tell me that we decided that something akin to the Apache (http://www.apache.org) license was more than sufficient, though there has been some added discussions about the incorporation of additional legal matter that would try to prevent users of the OHS license from obtaining patents that could block the evolution of OHS in any direction. Doug's vision, at least my interpretation of it, is that OHS should be completely free to evolve in any direction necessary to serve those needs of humanity for which it is created." Mei Lin Fung 5/31/2002 A. Licensing On September 27, 2001, at the 6th meeting of the Bootstrap Core Planning Committee(CPC) the CPC records show the following resolution be accepted. (The resolution was originally recorded in the minutes for the 5th meeting Sept 13 and revised at the 6th meeting. The resolution is recorded as accepted in the Minutes for the 6th meeting, and distributed to the CPC in the agenda and minutes for the 7th meeting October 4, 2001.) Resolved and Accepted: Bootstrap will adopt the Apache foundation open source license for all our projects. We will review this decision in 6 months. Karen Robbins will provide statement for our website and our standard response. B. Permission to Use clarification The CPC resolved 5/30/02 to communicate to the unrev and ohs lists: B.1 The Bootstrap Alliance (BA) is the sole host of the ba-ohs-talk list and the ba-unrev-talk list and encourages participation in the list discussions. BA wishes to clarify that the ba-unrev-talk discussion list and the ba-ohs-talk discussion list are not formally connected to the Colloquium on the Unfinished Revolution, co-sponsored by Stanford University,2000. Presenters in the Colloquium were asked to sign a document, called Permission to Use. The Permission to Use does not apply to BA activities and in no way governs interactions on either the ba-unrev-talk and ba-ohs-talk lists. BA understands that some ba-unrev-talk and ba-ohs-talk participants would like for BA to announce the intellectual property policy that applies to list interactions. BA is developing a policy statement that is aligned with the principles of Bootstrapping, articulated by Dr. Douglas Engelbart. A policy is under development and will be posted in the near future. From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 14:57:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 19E1A56FF8; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98E4556FF7 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26340 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4VMELj19370 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF7F5D7.F1D6EB4B@sun.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:14:47 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] ANN: Ool - Out-of-line Markup Tools References: <4.2.2.20020531112229.02363380@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Holy Cats!! This could be *exactly* what's needed to XML-ify legacy documents. (Change control is still an issue, but I'm thinking that all such documents get copied into a frozen archive, and any modifications take place within the Nodal-like version-controlled system. Jack Park wrote: > >From: "Simon St.Laurent" > >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > > > >I've released an initial version of Ool, a set of Java SAX filters for > >working with out-of-line markup in XML. > > > >http://simonstl.com/projects/ool/ > > > >Ool can separate XML documents into files containing their markup and > >their (element) text, using ool:text elements to indicate which part of > >the text file goes where in the document. It can also reconstruct > >documents from the separate markup and text files. (The incomplete > >portion optimizes the representation of where the text goes, but I've > >not had time...) From owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Fri May 31 15:00:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D1B4856FF9; Fri, 31 May 2002 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4848F56FF8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 15:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20526 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:17:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g4VMHAj21314 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 15:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CF7F67F.9143B15A@sun.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:17:35 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] ANN: Ool - Out-of-line Markup Tools References: <4.2.2.20020531112229.02363380@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org ba-ohs: Sorry all, I replied to the former without realizing I should have moved it to ba-unrev. Jack: Let's all keep all "useful technology" discussions on ba-unrev. Anything that gets picked up for use in HyperScope will be great, but ba-ohs should be for a discussion that is specific within that context. (I'd like to see unrev have a technical subcategory that non-techies could filter out, but at the moment we don't.) Jack Park wrote: > >From: "Simon St.Laurent" > >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > > > >I've released an initial version of Ool, a set of Java SAX filters for > >working with out-of-line markup in XML. > > > >http://simonstl.com/projects/ool/ > > > >Ool can separate XML documents into files containing their markup and > >their (element) text, using ool:text elements to indicate which part of > >the text file goes where in the document. It can also reconstruct > >documents from the separate markup and text files. (The incomplete > >portion optimizes the representation of where the text goes, but I've > >not had time...) > > > >Ool is not (yet) a means for realizing the hypertext dreams of Ted > >"Embedded Markup Considered Harmful" Nelson, but it may be a framework > >for experimentation on such things. > > > >The filter for recombining text and markup is also handy for textual > >inclusions whether or not they came from the separator - effectively > >it's a text-only includer which uses character locations for start and > >end-points. > > > >As a bit of a bonus, there's also a SAX filter which abolishes mixed > >content through the handy expedient of wrapping the odd bits of text > >(those which have element siblings) in elements conveniently named > >"mix:ed". This may prove useful for constraining mixed content using > >DTDs and W3C XML Schema in ways which are not presently possible. (RELAX > >NG needs no such assistance.) > > > >I do plan to work on this further, and port it to MOE (where many of the > >optimizations should be much simpler), but it'll be a little while. I'm > >editing too much to get time to focus on programming. > > > >-- > >Simon St.Laurent > >Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets > >Errors, errors, all fall down! > >http://simonstl.com > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an > >initiative of OASIS > > > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > >manager: