Couple of quick points on Jack's letter below. First, thanks, Jack, for
constructive comments about SDS.
Please keep in mind what Doug has requested, and what is important to objectives
he has set for the DKR team, is to establish a culture of knowledge in order to
discover a useful advance for existing information technology (IT). For
convenience, we are calling this knowledge management (KM). Accomplishing KM
requires, not simply citing URLs, but creating connections to relevant
information showing specific correlations, implications and explaining nuance.
These connections and explanations add value to information by growing
"knowledge." Just citing archives, or web pages, is a waste of time, as Eric
noted on 000824; again, see the letter on 001107...
That letter says in sum: to create KM, you must do KM 24 7 instead of IT. Doug
has placed a demand on the team to do this, but it is impossible to accomplish
without tools, training and support, per the Launch Plan.
Second, as Jack notes, SDS has demonstrated the ability to do KM. Research by
the DKR team this past year has shown that it is difficult to bump into a design
for KM by talking to colleagues, looking at web sites and attending seminars,
because none of those sources have the secret of KM. Architecture, design,
whatever you call it, the core of KM is a secret because it is
SDS can be greatly improved, once high powered capability begins working in the
right direction. I first learned about Doug and his work on 991222, and
recognized he wants to accomplish objectives that are supported by SDS....
I called Doug because he proposed "alliances" to advance KM.
That is what I am looking for: alliances to advance the technology.
Like everyone on the team, and everywhere in the world, Doug did not have enough
bandwidth to consider Rod and his stuff, because he was thinking about how to
get folks to build his stuff. So, I took 10 months to demonstrate that my stuff
Now, it is time look again for alliances with people who have the skills,
temperament, and resources to move the ball forward.
This can be done through partnership, friendship, the flagship of solving world
problems, or any other ship that gets the work done. There are a number of
simple initial technology things that are needed, so technology partners are
needed. There are number of marketing steps needed, so marketing partners are
needed, principally to spread the word.
But, above all we need to get more people willing and able to do KM in order to
create a culture of knowledge. The more people using SDS, the more presence
this has on the web, the more other people discover the power of knowledge that
builds demand for product. If we don't build demand for product, there will
never be a customer and we will never solve even a simple problem, much less a
big one. The aim: positioning others to discover the fun and effectiveness of
So, this is a call for alliance, an offer of partnership.
I have spent 15 years to figure out a way to do KM. I know from that experience
that putting this power in the hands of others requires leadership, technology
and training. Tools alone are not enough. Resources alone are not enough. We
need the right mix of ingredients to move forward.
Third, open source is a good development method to grow implementation
technologies and practices for the core of KM. Linux, for example retains
ownership of the core design. That seems like a good model to start. I am
willing to give up ownership, because there is plenty of value to share; but,
leadership is a bigger issue. Here is why.
There are two big issues on open source...
Strong leadership is required to build something that works, but people don't
want to build it initially, because it is counterintuitive, and so conflicts
with their common sense. Since open source people do what they want, they
cannot be led to produce what is needed. Once the core design is released, this
provides a foundation for open source to develop specific applications for
Stability of the core design for knowledge is needed for the same reason that
the core design of alphabet technology has remained stable for 2,000 years. If
the core design is not stable, then nothing will ever be adopted, no world
problem will ever be solved, at least by KM technology. My sense is that a
nexus between open source and Rod might occur by looking to set up a consortium
for KM, similar to W3C that enables industry to flourish according to
standards. There seem to be all manner of consortiums sprouting up, so why not
one to shepherd KM.
I believe that Doug is promoting open source, because he does not want
usefulness he discovered in developing NLS (later Augment), to, again, be
innovated out of the discussion by a bunch of kids, who don't have a clue how to
create usefulness. I can see that SDS is subject to the same forces, unless we
get going on creating a spec and installed based that provides cultural inertia
to sustain the capability. I know that it took hundreds of years for our
current KM system, alphabet technology, to become established. If KM is to
improve on that record we have to get going. There is not a moment to waste.
It has been great working with the team. KM is a full time job. You cannot
develop this part time, and you cannot do KM part time. I have devoted my full
attention to the task, because if that is not done, it will not advance. As a
result, I have not had any revenue for several years. That is the price of
progress. But, I cannot pay the price alone. If a culture of knowledge is to
emerge that carries civilization to a brighter day, others must be willing to
pay the price of progress.
So, lemmeee hear from anyone who wants to be partners. Let's hear those open
source ideas that align with requirements on moving KM forward.
And, if anyone wants help doing KM, if you have work that can benefit from this
capability, I can do that. Would looooove to make some money doing work that is
fun and effective for saving time and money by improving the competence of
people and organizations.
PS. This letter is IT. Here is the same thing in KM....
Jack Park wrote:
> Rod offers existence proof of his own claims! His ability to delineate the
> temporal sequences appropriate to this discussion is simply amazing. Of
> course, anyone could mine the archives of this list and eventually arrive at
> the same or similar statements, but Rod does it automatically, by way of his
> What is clear to me is that an effort should be made to pay closer attention
> to what Rod does and how he does it. In fact, mine his site deeply enough
> and you can construct a pretty good picture of his technology. As it turns
> out, Rod has stated on several occasions (sorry, I don't use the Welch web
> site enough to give some urls), he is not in favor of an open source
> implementation of his stuff; that, of course is his right and I respect
> that. Would that Rod could serve as an advisory member of the OHS team...
> Always keep in mind, however, that Rod's linking reflects his own view of
> the events. Each individual user might have the same or different views.
> The advantage of a public DKR would be the melding of views into something
> that Doug Lenat calls concensus reality. I tend to favor the term attractor
> basins for the same concept. Concensus reality, indeed!
> From: Rod Welch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Jack,
> > Responding to your question, below, "you" in Eric's letter may may have
> > to Adam, who wrote a letter earlier today rhetorically asking
> "....Shouldn't the
> > repository be called a DKR and not an OHS? Things will get too confusing
> > respect to Doug's existing documents if OHS starts to mean a repository
> > of a tool set."
> > Adam proposes avoiding confusion by focusing on Doug's documents. At
> issue is
> > the meaning of a "repository," of "knowledge," of "dynamic," and how that
> > relates to a system to generate documents that are linked, called "hyper
> > documents."
> > This was discussed on 000120...
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/01/20/080146.HTM#L252602
> > ...which you raised again on 000426, indicating that "architecture"
> defines DKR?
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/04/26/102612.HTM#L131778
> > On 001017 Eugene advised that the new core team will set the
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/17/160043.HTM#LC22026
> > So, in effect, we still have not settled these issues.
> > Yet, even though DKR is not established, it seems clear that "knowledge"
> is a
> > key part of a DKR that needs attention, as Eric noted on 000503.
> > One aspect of "knowledge" is aligning information with context, per your
> > to Paul Fernhout on 001025. "Context" positions information in relation
> > history, also, called "chronology," because sequence imparts cause and
> > Understanding causation is useful for computer programming, building a
> > baking a cake, lots of things. Context, also, positions information in
> > to objectives, requirements and commitments. It is not enough to call for
> > "context." We have to produce it. We have to take action. So, in my
> > here is a big secret of KM: it is all about action.
> > For example, on 000424 Adam proposed "listening to Doug...."
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/04/24/113927.HTM#1590
> > ...and, you concurred. That sets a standard, or requirement, for the DKR
> > to do business by looking to see what Doug says, and has said.
> > So, how do we do that?
> > On 001027 Doug requested that comments be linked to relevant parts of
> > sources. That is an important request, because cross posting, which you
> > out, as well, in a letter on 001019, shows alignment with objectives,
> > requirements, commitments, and history....
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#L771002
> > That sounds like a good way to "listen."
> > "Listening" is one of those happy words that we all toss around, when
> > that other folks are not following our common sense view of things.
> > However, "listening," when applied in the manner Doug requests, has a
> > meaning. It will lead the team to an OHS and a DKR, based on a working
> > understanding of "knowledge," "intelligence," and other stuff that is
> > foundational to KM, that was discussed by Mary Keeler at SRI on 000518,
> > also, set out in Charles Peirce's semiotics, reviewed on 000515....
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/05/18/160027.HTM#L571383
> > So, we have Chuck, Mary and Doug all pointing the way.
> > On the merits of Eric's question about the correlation of a DKR and OHS.
> > Launch Plan on 001025 sets out a weak correlation. Adam seems correct
> that OHS
> > sounds like a set of tools primarily to link, translate and manipulate
> > DKR is the stuff that is linked, translated and manipulated....
> > http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/10/25/095632.HTM#LBO0602
> > Note, that Doug discusses support by skilled operatives, which is a Com
> > approach. Doug requests comments on his initial explanation; but, so far
> it is
> > getting no comments, because attention is on DTD's Java, Python, XML,
> Topic Maps
> > and other methods, rather than figuring what these important methods need
> > accomplish.
> > As set out in the letter to Henry, copied to the team, on 001107,
> > over the past 15 years indicates, particularly the past 10 months, and
> > broadly over Doug's 40 years working on this matter, KM is a secret which
> > only discovered by doing KM...
> > http://www.welchco.com/04/00067/61/00/11/0901.HTM#I17J
> > ...to transition from an information to a knowledge culture.
> > Let's listen to Doug.
> > Rod
> 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
> eGroups Sponsor
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Shortcut URL to this page:
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 11:18:31 PST