Re: [unrev-II] Use Case...Competing Reductions

From: Rod Welch (rowelch@attglobal.net)
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 19:14:16 PDT

  • Next message: Rod Welch: "Re: [unrev-II] Project Meeting Agenda"

    Eric,

    Why does a "summary" replace the original version, rather than simply summarize
    it and provide a pointer to facilitate access, when needed, like any other
    link? I am generally not in favor of relying on the summary except as a clue to
    scope and relevance, but maybe there is a good case for replacing; or, maybe I
    just don't "get it" -- can't picture what you have in mind and how it would be
    applied.

    Is it possible to provide a manual mock up to better illustrate the bang for the
    buck on this use case?

    Thanks.

    Rod

    Eric Armstrong wrote:

    > Once we allow for summary versions that replace the original
    > version, we have to allow for the existence of multiple
    > summaries (competing versions) and figure out what to do with
    > them.
    >
    > One way around the issue is to restrict summarizing to the
    > original author. But as soon as we open the doors to a second
    > author, we need to establish change-control mechanisms (very
    > complex) or allow the competing versions to exist side-by-side,
    > so that they may themselves be summarized.
    >
    > Rod Welch wrote:
    > >
    > > Eric,
    > >
    > > A concrete example would make it make it easier to grasp your idea,
    > > and the improvement contemplated. The record of the DKR meeting on
    > > 000324 shows a summary, for example, and identifies some responses.
    > >
    > > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/03/24/160030.HTM
    > >
    > > Does this use case relate to that situation, or can you point to
    > > another example in the project record that illustrates this use
    > > case....
    > >
    > > http://welchco.com/04/00067/63/00401.HTM
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > > Rod
    > >
    > > Eric Armstrong wrote:
    > >
    > > > A node collects a number of responses, arguments
    > > > and counter arguments in a deep hierarchy.
    > > >
    > > > Person 1 writes a "summary" of the arguments
    > > > for and the arguments against.
    > > >
    > > > The new nodes need to replace the original set
    > > > of nodes, and yet link to them. (Given responses
    > > > +1, +2, -1, -2, the +summary should replace +1
    > > > and +2, while the -summary should replace -1
    > > > and -2.)
    > > >
    > > > Meanwhile, Person 2 also writes a summary that aims
    > > > to replace the arguments. The two summaries are
    > > > now "siblings", each of get evaluated by others.
    > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > >
    > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > >
    > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    >
    > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 19:20:46 PDT