I agree that the separation into tools (editor/browser),
repositories, and entities (documents) is useful and accurate.
I also feel strongly that if we are going to use terms that Doug
created, we do so in a way that he feels comfortable and aligned
with, otherwise we won't encourage his support.
We should ask Doug to clarify some of these definitions, as we
do want to get them right; I was just signalling that since there appear
to be slightly different perspectives on the term OHS, this could
be a candidate for such clarification.
I tried looking for a glossary which might clarify, and I found at the top
the OHS page of the bootstrap institute, the quote: "OHS - the critical
missing piece of the technology to enable dynamic distributed collective
This may at least explain my impression that OHS is technology, not a
repository. However, other text makes it seem more ambiguous, as if the
OHS is both the tools and the document repository at the same time.
We'll have to ask Doug. DKR, on the other hand, seems pretty unambigously
a dynamic knowledge repository.
From: Eric Armstrong [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Re: Tuesday's meeting
It's a sign of the fact that the terms have never
been defined, I think, that I have never conceived
of the OHS as a toolset, while you clearly have.
I have always seen the OHS as some sort of repository.
That is not necessarily the most ideal or the most
useful vision -- its just the one I have always had.
You, on the other hand, have a very different vision,
that appears to be based on documents I am unfamiliar
with. At least, I don't recall seeing anything that
described things in that way.
Apparently, you are of a school that sees the OHS
as thing that looks into the DKR? I've heard others
talking in that fashion, but have never understood
that particular view of things.
I agree that consistent terminology is necessary.
At Tuesday's meeting, we consistently referred to
the OHS as though it were a repository with a
functional interface, and no one seemed to be
adverse to that label.
I think the design makes sense, regardless of what
we label the components, but I agree that consistent
labeling is desirable.
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 17:24:07 PST