Re: [unrev-II] Listening to Doug

From: Jack Park (
Date: Thu Nov 16 2000 - 06:59:18 PST

  • Next message: Jack Park: "[unrev-II] A truly interesting discussion at"

    Rod offers existence proof of his own claims! His ability to delineate the
    temporal sequences appropriate to this discussion is simply amazing. Of
    course, anyone could mine the archives of this list and eventually arrive at
    the same or similar statements, but Rod does it automatically, by way of his

    What is clear to me is that an effort should be made to pay closer attention
    to what Rod does and how he does it. In fact, mine his site deeply enough
    and you can construct a pretty good picture of his technology. As it turns
    out, Rod has stated on several occasions (sorry, I don't use the Welch web
    site enough to give some urls), he is not in favor of an open source
    implementation of his stuff; that, of course is his right and I respect
    that. Would that Rod could serve as an advisory member of the OHS team...

    Always keep in mind, however, that Rod's linking reflects his own view of
    the events. Each individual user might have the same or different views.
    The advantage of a public DKR would be the melding of views into something
    that Doug Lenat calls concensus reality. I tend to favor the term attractor
    basins for the same concept. Concensus reality, indeed!


    From: Rod Welch <>

    > Jack,
    > Responding to your question, below, "you" in Eric's letter may may have
    > to Adam, who wrote a letter earlier today rhetorically asking
    "....Shouldn't the
    > repository be called a DKR and not an OHS? Things will get too confusing
    > respect to Doug's existing documents if OHS starts to mean a repository
    > of a tool set."
    > Adam proposes avoiding confusion by focusing on Doug's documents. At
    issue is
    > the meaning of a "repository," of "knowledge," of "dynamic," and how that
    > relates to a system to generate documents that are linked, called "hyper
    > documents."
    > This was discussed on 000120...
    > ...which you raised again on 000426, indicating that "architecture"
    defines DKR?
    > On 001017 Eugene advised that the new core team will set the
    > So, in effect, we still have not settled these issues.
    > Yet, even though DKR is not established, it seems clear that "knowledge"
    is a
    > key part of a DKR that needs attention, as Eric noted on 000503.
    > One aspect of "knowledge" is aligning information with context, per your
    > to Paul Fernhout on 001025. "Context" positions information in relation
    > history, also, called "chronology," because sequence imparts cause and
    > Understanding causation is useful for computer programming, building a
    > baking a cake, lots of things. Context, also, positions information in
    > to objectives, requirements and commitments. It is not enough to call for
    > "context." We have to produce it. We have to take action. So, in my
    > here is a big secret of KM: it is all about action.
    > For example, on 000424 Adam proposed "listening to Doug...."
    > ...and, you concurred. That sets a standard, or requirement, for the DKR
    > to do business by looking to see what Doug says, and has said.
    > So, how do we do that?
    > On 001027 Doug requested that comments be linked to relevant parts of
    > sources. That is an important request, because cross posting, which you
    > out, as well, in a letter on 001019, shows alignment with objectives,
    > requirements, commitments, and history....
    > That sounds like a good way to "listen."
    > "Listening" is one of those happy words that we all toss around, when
    > that other folks are not following our common sense view of things.
    > However, "listening," when applied in the manner Doug requests, has a
    > meaning. It will lead the team to an OHS and a DKR, based on a working
    > understanding of "knowledge," "intelligence," and other stuff that is
    > foundational to KM, that was discussed by Mary Keeler at SRI on 000518,
    > also, set out in Charles Peirce's semiotics, reviewed on 000515....
    > So, we have Chuck, Mary and Doug all pointing the way.
    > On the merits of Eric's question about the correlation of a DKR and OHS.
    > Launch Plan on 001025 sets out a weak correlation. Adam seems correct
    that OHS
    > sounds like a set of tools primarily to link, translate and manipulate
    > DKR is the stuff that is linked, translated and manipulated....
    > Note, that Doug discusses support by skilled operatives, which is a Com
    > approach. Doug requests comments on his initial explanation; but, so far
    it is
    > getting no comments, because attention is on DTD's Java, Python, XML,
    Topic Maps
    > and other methods, rather than figuring what these important methods need
    > accomplish.
    > As set out in the letter to Henry, copied to the team, on 001107,
    > over the past 15 years indicates, particularly the past 10 months, and
    > broadly over Doug's 40 years working on this matter, KM is a secret which
    > only discovered by doing KM...
    > transition from an information to a knowledge culture.
    > Let's listen to Doug.
    > Rod

    This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
    contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
    the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
    If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
    of the message and its attachments and notify

    -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
    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 Nov 16 2000 - 08:09:44 PST