RE: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure.

From: Gil Regev (
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 04:25:36 PDT

  • Next message: Gil Regev: "RE: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure (Somuthing happened on the way to the forum)"

      Eric wrote
    > One thing I like about Tractions ability to *add* categories
    > to an information node is that it makes it possible to
    > reframe points in a discussion from a different point.
      Yes, this is nice but not very different from what programs such as Lotus
    Notes or Outlook do which is to put a node in multiple categories. I think
    the problem we all have and that was illustrated by the Forrest Gump story
    is that we are unable to see things with other people's category and value
    systems. It is extremely difficult to externalize one's category system in
    ways that make it understandable by others. It is one thing to flesh out
    some of it in a conversation, it is another to make it explicit in a way
    that makes it understandable or even simply viewable by a machine.
      Machines also don't have much of a sense of humor :) Would a machine
    understand anything from the Forrest Gump Story? Absolutely not, but you all
    did. Naratives and jokes are very powerful. How do we integrate them into
    the OHS or DKR? I understand that such a question goes beyond the tidepool
    boat but if we don't tackle it soon enough, aren't we just going to produce
    another Lotus Notes?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 04:34:25 PDT