[unrev-II] Augment + categories = OHS v0.1

From: Eugene Eric Kim (eekim@eekim.com)
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 20:33:52 PDT

  • Next message: Rod Welch: "[unrev-II] Augment + categories = OHS v0.1"

    Based on the discussions we had at our meeting today and some of the
    discussions afterwards with Eric, Howard and others, I came up with the
    following conclusions.

    Fundamentally, our system consists of two things: nodes and links. The
    difference between our system and the previous two revisions of Doug's
    work is that our system allows us to categorize nodes. Categorizing nodes
    is crucial, because it provides an additional semantic layer that is
    crucial for knowledge management. Both the users of the system and the
    system itself can take advantage of this additional layer.

    For example, in order to adapt our system to accomodate IBIS-style
    discussions, we add categories such as "question," "answer," and
    "alternatives." With this information, we can search for all the
    questions pertaining to a particular topic of discussion. Or, we can
    write a system module that automatically compiles and presents an IBIS
    view based on the current question and answer nodes.

    Categorizing nodes allows us to provide some structure to discussion, even
    if the discussion itself is unstructured. For example, if we're trying to
    come up with a Use Cases document for a piece of software, I may propose
    five different Use Cases in three different e-mails. However, if these
    nodes are properly categorized in each node, then I can easily create a
    Use Cases view that shows all of the Use Cases in one view, regardless of
    when or where these were proposed.

    I think there's still one open question that needs to be resolved for
    version 0.1 of the OHS. That question is, are links categorizable? This
    relates to some of Eric's previous questions regarding relationships. In
    my opinion, a link is the way you represent a relationship. The question
    is, should you be able to specify categories for a link.

    My suspicion is yes. Even if this doesn't immediately affect system
    behavior, I think it is a useful attribute to have in the data
    structure. In Gil's Knoware, which he demonstrated last week, you can
    label relationships, but those labels have no meaning. However, it should
    be fairly easy to give those labels meaning in the system in the future,
    which is one of the things Gil said he planned on doing. I see no reason
    why we shouldn't take the same approach.


    +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== eekim@eekim.com ===== http://www.eekim.com/ ===+
    |       "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they        |
    +=====  can have an excuse to drink alcohol."  --Steve Martin  ===========+

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch? Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors. http://click.egroups.com/1/5176/5/_/444287/_/961731819/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Jun 22 2000 - 20:52:02 PDT