Eric,
Is this done in any form now?
Another possibility is that this is the versioning thing that Xanadu
emphasizes. We talked a bit earlier about the need to avoid becoming
overwhelmed by different versions, under the rule of scale Doug has laid out.
Could you provide an example of a document that has been edited using this
method, or even one that has not, and just manually mock up how it would be
different using a stronger editing capability?
Webmail provides some of this capability????
Is the main objective to produce an audit trail of changes both for
accountability and to facilitate pattern recognition that spawns innovation from
observing the evolution of thinking through writing? Can that process, also
called traceability to original sources, be applied beyond tracking changes in
documents?
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> This is one of those cases that cuts across all the scenarios.
> The idea is that "responding" to a document is now the moral
> equivalent of editing it. The difference is that your edits
> are always additions, they are always indented, and they show
> you as their author.
>
> However, your responses are not sent one-at-a-time. That lets
> you go back to change your initial comments when you read
> farther along. The ease of doing that creates not just a
> quantitative improvement in time/money spent on revisions, but
> also produces a qualitative change in the way we think about
> working on documents.
>
> Measurements are notoriously difficult to make on such "paradigm
> shifts". Like email vs. snail mail, the change in work habits
> produces effects that are orders of magnitude greater than the
> comparisons between postage stamps and transmission times.
>
>
> Rod Welch wrote:
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> > Provide a use case scenario for this application. Is it for the
> > narrow case of lawyers working on a brief or contract, or engineers
> > preparing a specification? How much time and money can be saved by
> > improving existing methods?
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > Eric Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > A hierarchical document/message is received.
> > > Multiple comments are made on it, each of
> > > which appears in the local hierarchy view.
> > >
> > > When you are done revising all of the comments
> > > you wish to make, a single SEND operation
> > > sends them back to the server or recipient-list,
> > > depending on the model.
> > >
> > > The document that goes out is tagged as a
> > > "difference" document. It contains pointers
> > > to all the nodes that are to receive the
> > > comments, and the comment-structure for
> > > each node.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 - 19:43:59 PDT