Re: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure (Somuthinghappenedon the way to the forum)

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Thu May 04 2000 - 13:34:18 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "Re: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure ("

    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.

    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!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 13:42:06 PDT