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