[ba-unrev-talk] Re: [ba-ohs-talk] rough draft of graph model paper
Eugene. (01)
1. I am taking this to the unrev-talk forum where this really belongs. Happily; the
subject still refers to the source thread. Might be a useful feature more generally. (02)
2. Thanks for reference to http://www.eekim.com/ohs/papers/grovesintro/#04 (03)
Keeps me learning, but I wouldn't want to write exams! (04)
3. Now, re what you wrote in response to my comments, (05)
Eugene Eric Kim wrote: (06)
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Henry K van Eyken wrote:
>
> > <snip> Initially, my musing led to the suggestion that
> >
> > (a) we ought to emphasize the value of making better use of the vernacular as
> > an intermediary processor (IP) between people slaving in different professional
> > and cultural niches (as the introduction to your document indeed tries to do),
> > and
> >
> > (b) that articles ought be accompanied by an indication of what potential
> > readers should already know about or understand or some indication of what
> > readership an author wishes to address. It used to be that context carries the
> > day (as indeed the title of your article does to an extent), but in a world of
> > information ever-complexing we must somehow come up with better ways of
> > communicating in addition to optimizing the use of hyperlinks. Or we all end up
> > being able to communicate effectively only within our narrow niches and will be
> > at loss everywhere else.
>
> Both are interesting points. Do you have some proposed solutions?
>
> My suspicion is that the solutions to these problems would fall outside
> the scope of the OHS itself. That's not to say that these problems fall
> outside the scope of Doug's mission. Remember, the OHS is only a small
> (but important) part of a tool system, which itself is only a small part
> of an augmented human-tool system universe. It's important to think about
> the entire universe -- that is what Doug's philosophy is all about. And
> if the solutions to the problems you present above are not the OHS's
> direct responsibility, the OHS developers must still be aware of those
> problems, so they do not inadvertently deaugment those solutions. <snip>
> (07)
Yes, outside scope of OHS; inside scope of ultimate objectives. Doug regards OHS as a
sine-qua-non with respect to solving urgent, complex problems and as you have pointed
out elsewhere, HyperScope is a major tool for breaking through communication barriers
of computer-technological nature (in the "tool system," as Doug has it). Other
communication barriers to be addressed - no less essential, to my mind - are within
the "human system." I only mentioned optimizing what profit may be gained here from
employing the vernacular, but I realize very well that this is easier said than done.
Do I have any solutions to propose? you ask. Wish I had any thing substantial, but at
least we can be keenly aware of the problem, learn what can be learned and,
hopefully, gradually learn to cut a swath through the thicket. So, my answer is for
now, let's not overlook the problem, let's be fully aware the problem exists and be
on the alert for potential ways of addressing it. Again, that should be proper
concern of Fleabyte (Geez, how we need help!!! - and if help is offered, how we need
a good way of collaborating, etc.) Well, I think we are of one mind about these
things. (08)
Closely related also is general ability on a popular level to make good use of the
computer, such as for locating information effectively. Interesting here is a
contribution Peter Jones pointed to in his Re: [ba-ohs-talk] SUN's Conceptual
Indexing Project for Precision Content Retrieval earlier today. And then comes the
matter of efficiently evaluating whatever info is retrieved and do so in terms of the
greater human good in a world with widely differing conceptions about that (exampli
non gratia: Bin Laden). (09)
Wow. (010)
Henry (011)