Re: [unrev-II] Jack Park's "10 Step" Program

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:14:15 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "Re: [unrev-II] MySQL License"

    Great stuff.

    Jack Park wrote:
    > Category level IS architecture level. An architecture delineates
    > categories of components and their interrelationships. ... In
    > UML methodology, you would define categories (equivalent to Java
    > packages)...
    Got it. Never heard that called "Category design" before.

    > Doug's need to understand WBI does, indeed, jump deeply into
    > implementation issues...
    Yeah. The same way I jumped into data structures.
    I really would like to visit this in some depth. You said that
    you and Adam had played around with WBI and with Weblets. Would
    either of you be prepared to do a small report on what you've
    learned so far?

    More to the point: Summarizing the messages over the last 48-hours
    leads me to believe that what the group (or at least the vocal
    part of it) wants to do is table the existing agenda and devote
    some time to exploring the WBI approach. In the process, Doug
    should be derive whatever he needs for his trip to Washington.

    Can we identify those needs, and do we have any thoughts on the
    best way to go about the investigation?

    > Remember, everything is supposed to draw from the original narrative.
    > It should read something like the combined works of marketing (what the
    > market thinks it wants), engineering (what folks think can be done), and
    > vision (what folks want to get done)...
    I like that concept very much. But it sounds like we need to defer
    that focus until after the Washington trip? I happen to think that
    focus is perfect, but that's not what I hear people demanding.

    > Doug's Augment sets the stage. Rod Welch brings to the table an
    > existence proof of concept for some aspects of a DKR. Visit his web
    > site. David Gelernter (another visionary) has brought to the table
    > another existence proof of concept (LifeStreams) which has some
    > fundamental similarities to Rod's work. Doug Lenat has demonstrated
    > existence proof of the concept of evolutionary epistemology (Eurisko),
    > and VerticalNet, the company for which I work, is generating proof of
    > the need for and value of ontological engineering (the study of what is)
    > at the bottom of everything. And under that lies knowledge representation
    > (Erics atomic structures)...
    Yes, this does seem important for a DKR. But in terms of our focus:
    Augmenting Open Source Development, isn't it premature to go that deep?
    I thought our primary focus was OHS-related, avoiding deeper knowledge
    issues, at least at the outset.

    > Thusly, it seems to me that our job should be to revisit the
    > narrative: mine this mailing list for gems and formulate a draft text.
    > Mine Rod's web site, his technology white papers and so forth, mine
    > Gelernter's work, look at Lenat's work, look around, and formulate a
    > final narrative that everyone can agree adequately lays out the vision,
    > the market, and the technology available to us.
    Again, I agree with this. I would add the step of evaluating the
    collaboration-projects currently in existence. That strikes me as the
    right design path. At this point, you have made 4 suggestions for
    the continuation:
      1) Pursue the WBI vector
      2) Follow an ISO 9000 path
      3) Follow a path based on Nancy Glock's Knowledge Representation talk
      4) Focus on building the narrative

    Which of these do you see as most important?

    > Along the way, contributions to the use case and scenario arena will
    > be valuable. Indeed, they contribute something to the marketing
    > narrative, and to the requirements document. Ultimately, the requirements
    > document rules. We damned well better build something that satisfies
    > those requirements. Testing will determine whether the requirements are
    > satisfied.
    > Yes, there will be some of us who will jump way ahead and hack some
    > code, trying to see what works. Doing so adds spice to the narrative,
    > but always remember that the narrative is NOT ALLOWED to delineate any
    > aspect of implementation, only to discuss technology.
    Sounds good.

    Double your manufacturer's warranty on all computers,
    home appliances, and electronics AND win up to $500
    towards your purchase!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:24:01 PDT