Jack Park wrote:
>
> ... settling for what's doable is just liable to make it
> impossible to append what's hard on as an afterthought.
>
I would like to address that concern, if possible.
Can you give a functional view of a knowledge-based system
-- how it would act / what it would do / how you or I would
interact with it, or possibly an internal view of a design?
Or is this something that the group will need to explore,
investigate, and define?
If the former, I feel confident that we can take those issues
into account while doing the design, and we should schedule
a session to cover that ground, to make sure that we do.
If the latter, I'm not sure that we, as a group, have that
luxury. The group may decide that it wants to pursue that avenue.
I'm sure it would be valuable. But my understanding of the
present series of meetings was that it is focused on building
a relatively immediate "next step" so that remote participants
can take part in the design and discussions revolving around
the next version.
[Note:
I find myself arguing both sides of the case, here. With WBI,
I argue that it will be insufficiently robust, and with respect
to knowledge management, I argue that it may open up the design
space too far. So either I am inconsistent, or I am reaching
for a reasonable middle ground. On the other hand, I see you
favoring both WBI and knowledge-centered design. Do you see
a potential connection between these two?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3863/3/_/444287/_/957472456/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Thu May 04 2000 - 13:42:06 PDT