Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 07:30:08 -0400
Mr. Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net
The Welch Company
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111 2496
| Subject: | SDS Implement Doug's Ideas, E-Journal |
Thanks, Rod. Your letter was again an excellent demonstration of how SDS works.
Permit me to slightly tune up my proposal for an article on SDS for the e-journal, "Engelbart in Context" (EIC) and expand with some clarification..
To be sure, I do not see (at the present time) EIC as a typical discussion forum, more as an extension of traditional publishing altered by and supplemented with opportunities offered by e-publishing. For example, EIC is not a periodical, but an ongoing publication with a front page and a contents page leading into an archive and later, I hope, a DKR. This is not to say that we do not intend to have discussions associated with the contents.
I had felt for a long time that SDS is an important part of the domain where Doug's professional thinking roams, a thinking that seeks to approach his lifetime goal of establishing a capability of solving urgent, complex problems. It is with this in mind that I approached you to author a presentation about how SDS aligns with a section of Doug's 1992 paper, "Toward High-Performance Organizations: A strategic Role of Groupware." In our conversation I singled out par. 7G, "Explicitly Structured Documents - where the objects comprising a document are arranged in an explicit hierarchical structure, and compound-object substructures may be explicitly addressed for access or to manipulate the structural relationships."
We did not discuss any further details about your contribution except that I had in mind that it may also serve as a model for an editorial policy how to handle contributions from parties with a commercial interest. I had in mind that the article at the time of publication would include a (presumably short) critique by one with a purely professional interest plus a rebuttal by the author to address any possible erroneous or misleading statement innocently made. Any further discussion would go to a traditional discussion forum. I had already asked Jack if he would agree to comment on an article by you to which he agreed and in so doing stated positive feelings about your contribution.
As for the nature of articles in the e-journal, I perceive them not as typical academic articles, but more of a character palatable to a more general readership than we are accustomed to. Ideally, they should be written to capture interest and I hope we can find a way of bringing this about gradually through co-operation between authors and editors. (I am hoping we can form an editorial staff who can learn to deal with pride and prejudice in a persistently professional manner.)
You responded that you had written much on the subject and that it would do no good to write for the e-journal. Then you offered some alternative approaches. While considering them valid, I simply laid them aside for lack of manpower.
Now, turning to your SDS record, we find:
261550 - Why not do another colloquium to explain findings from 18 months 261551 - of research spawned by the first colloquium? 261552 -
Let me respond that I perceive EIC very much as a continuation of the Colloquium held at Stanford. A Colloquium by other means. Furthermore that I am seeking early contributions related to pars. 7 - 9I of the above-mentioned 1992 paper.
Let me restate that I think the SDS a remarkable effort and that I am most impressed with how it came into existence. That in itself ought make an interesting story.
Henry
Sincerely,
Henry van Eyken
vaneyken@sympatico.ca
Copy to: