Re: [unrev-II] Re: Tuesday's meeting

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 15:11:57 PST

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "[Fwd: RE: [unrev-II] Digest Number 282]"

    Ah. Reply works fine now. Strange that it wouldn't work before.
    I can see HTML file...

    Do those terms make sense to you? Sure wish you had been there
    at the design meetings so we could start using the terms

    It's hell trying to figure out how to reconstruct umpteen hours
    of discussion using different terms than the ones we carried on
    the discussion with...

    Adam Cheyer wrote:
    > Just for fun, I called Doug to see if he could shed light on the
    > definitions
    > of these terms. Here's what I got:
    > Hyperdocument: "The knowledge container. No one says it has to be a
    > file,
    > any container."
    > Dynamic Knowledge Repository: "The handbook, the conversations and
    > annotations,
    > the contents. Dynamically up to date representing the state of
    > the
    > repository.
    > If you want more depth, you can trace back and find the evolution
    > of
    > that in
    > the record."
    > OHS : "A toolset with the structure and properties of the knowledge
    > containers plus the functions that you can execute on them,
    > including
    > viewing,
    > traveling, linking, editing, etc. Includes auxilliary languages,
    > compilers, tools,
    > user interface. Does not include the contents of documents
    > itself,
    > only how you structure and operate on them."
    > HyperScope: "Part of the OHS, that you can implement early and get
    > immediate
    > utility in the context of legacy files. As it evolves to add
    > more
    > features
    > (e.g. backlinking, editing), it becomes a bigger part of the
    > OHS."
    > OHS to me now seems almost like the term "MS Windows", which contains
    > the
    > operating
    > system, the look and feel, the philosophy, as well as a set of
    > included
    > tools such
    > as the web browser or media player. But it appears OHS does not
    > represent
    > the content
    > of the knowledge repository or containers (documents).
    > Doug was thrilled to be asked about it and was happy that we are
    > having
    > dialogs
    > about this because he emphasized how working through terms is an
    > essential
    > part
    > of cooperative knowledge work.
    > -- Adam
    > ps: Does reply work better not that I'm not sending as HTML?
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Eric Armstrong []
    > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:46 PM
    > To:
    > Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Re: Tuesday's meeting
    > Thanks for looking into that, Adam.
    > Good to know that I hadn't just missed something obvious.
    > Consistent terminology makes sense. It's the only tool we
    > have to attack the problem with.
    > I am totally in love with:
    > HyperScope -- the viewer
    > HyperDocument -- the thing viewed (a "slice" taken
    > from a repository)
    > Open HyperDocument Repository -- where they are kept
    > OHS: HyperScope + OHR + HyperDocuments
    > At the moment, I continue to reserve the term "DKR" for
    > future developments. Jack and Howard are constructing
    > the ontology for the OHS, and we need that. But later on
    > they are going to want to build bigger and better
    > ontologies to solve even deeper problems (yes?).
    > I know that the OHS as currently envisioned will solve
    > a lot of problems, and provide us with the ability to
    > carry on intelligent, far-ranging discussions that can
    > eventually "coalesce" to reach one or more conclusions.
    > I'm not yet convinced, however, that it will give Jack
    > and Howard *all* the tools they need to play with
    > bigger and better ontologies -- to construct them,
    > operate on them, and use them to deal with information
    > in meaningful ways. Much as I want to see the capability
    > come into existence, it is not all clear to me that the
    > current design will be capable of doing that.
    > So I tend to use DKR for that still-nebulous thing we
    > hope to get to sometime downstream. In many ways, it
    > is a label for my ignorance -- for all the things I
    > have to understand about what we need, and about how
    > to provide them. (The difficulty I have in following
    > ontology-related discussions convinces me that the
    > system I understand (the OHS) is unlikely to qualify
    > as a DKR.)
    > [BTW: When I reply to your messages, the automatic
    > quoting feature does not seem to work. Perhaps because
    > it is in HTML form? Or do you use IE, and it is doing
    > something that is incompatible with Netscape's quoting
    > mechansim?]
    > eGroups Sponsor
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message:
    > Subscribe:
    > Unsubscribe:
    > List owner:
    > 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
    > immediately.
    > ============================================================================
    > eGroups Sponsor
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message:
    > Subscribe:
    > Unsubscribe:
    > List owner:
    > Shortcut URL to this page:

    -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
    It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 15:22:33 PST