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

From: Jack Park (
Date: Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:36:42 PDT

  • Next message: "Re: [unrev-II] XML at IBM..."

    From: Eric Armstrong <>
    > Jack Park wrote:
    > >
    >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?
    I can do a few preliminary slides on WBI that show the direction I think
    that architecture is going (assuming my health holds up). I would be
    interested in entertaining discussion on alternatives to WBI, especially in
    the event that it does not satisfy cross-platform requirements; the Windoz
    version I downloaded has a dll. Alternatives might include the XML compiler
    of Enhydra, DirectDom (weblets), and something new called JDom that will be
    introduced in a new Java/XML book from O'Reilly (coming soon, I hope).

    > > 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.

    Perhaps the next meeting (tomorrow!) should focus on Doug's needs.

    > > 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
    > > (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.
    Interesting point. But then, if you focus the initial design on solving one
    problem, you risk painting yourself into a corner that forces redesign later
    on. I'm a "big picture" player, myself.

    > > 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?
    Great addition, evaluating existing stuff as part of the narrative. Which
    do I prefer? Well, I'm playing with WBI, so ruling that one out, I'd much
    prefer to build the narrative, since that's the first step in the other two.

    Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your
    unique interests. is surfing without searching.
    And, it's FREE!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 14:45:21 PDT