It seems that we're working towards similar goals, from similar understandings.

I'd submit that you have taken the approach of working with unstructured information in narrative and paragraph form, while I've taken the approach of working with structured information in object form. See http://one-world-is.com/rer/dem/slides/img101.gif and http://one-world-is.com/rer/dem/slides/img090.gif.

Notice, in the img101 slide, I've pursued the right side of the diagram (as shown by img090), while you appear to be pursuing more of the left side, which I've only lightly touched through my concepts of recycling information via indexing and categorizing technologies indexing and categorizing technologies (http://one-world-is.com/rer/ue-gem/).

Although I've proposed leveraging the indexing and categorizing technologies (which potentially use fuzzy logic and linguistic analysis) for identifying managed objects and their associations and timeframes, the same technology could probably be leveraged to assist in your mapping of unstructured information.

One could perhaps encapsulate the differences in our approaches by postulating that I'm taking more of an "accountants" view than a "librarian's" view. I believe that everyone, in managing their "stuff", wants to not see much more than the "bottom line" as to what's real information, and they seldon want to see much of the infinitely detailed "activity" (unless they have questions about cause/effect or other history).

We both seem to use tree (hierarchical) and star (associative) constructs.

In terms of time, you seem to use time as a "timestamp" on a topic to show currency and sequence (although I haven't figured out your notation). My approach uses time for those purposes, but also for object/profile versioning and change management function (which I don't see in your referencing notation).

As to Campbell - I saw your reference to Campbell in your original posting, so I thought you'd appreciate the correlation.

As to the KMC. I've come to the conclusion that the KMC is a good idea, poorly executed. I had strong interest in joining the KMC, but three things changed my mind.

1. The way in which a gentleman pointing to a series of UML links in one of the Discussion forums was abruptly dismissed and was told over a series of responses that a prior decision had been made (by whom, under what rationale?) that UML would not be used. This seemed poorly handled, and highly exclusionary, from the leader of the KMC. KMC did not seem a friendly and inclusive place from that situation. That caused me to withhold my membership check until I saw more.

2. The poorly organized and executed KMC seminar in Maryland in late January 99, and the presents of strong "insider" cliques reinforced the feeling of an exclusive group looking for cash from excluded members.

3. Mr. Joe Firestone's handling of the Artificial KMS sessions during the seminar left little room or mechanism to discuss little more than Mr. Firestone's material. He actively resisted input from others in the session. More exclusion, predefinition of "what's worth considering", and only valuing the "inner circle" of early contributors.

I think the AIIM has done a service by indicating that the KMC must establish a "glossary" of terms as one of its first standardization efforts. The process of reconciling multiple viewpoints and multiple lexicons (see my definition of management) will either open up KMC or bury it. Time will tell. I've informed the KMC via email that I will be pursuing other priorities and so will not join yet. I'll observe for a while and see where they settle.

As to the KMC focusing on "improving the alphabet". I'm unsure what you mean.

Create a variation on world alphabets, ala "Esperanto"?

That's a little too close to changing the psychology, culture, and civilization for my interest and discounts the dynamics of life. I accept the psychology of people, in the current world, as a given which must be worked with. It will evolve, but will not be mandated.

In that light, I seek to provide technology and methods to support the change of awareness in the world, from the individual to the species level, thereby contributing to changing the psychology, culture, and civilization (in a method similar to the way the Web has changed us).

It's an iterative process - technology to psychology to technology. I'm certain it cannot be done in the reverse way on a large scale.

Seeking to provide the technology and methods is a single implementation over time (Order is with this). Seeking to change psychology is the attempt to change billions of people, in thousands of cultures, in hundreds of nations (Chaos is against it). I see the technology approach is one of providing a convergent point to which people/cultures/nations can choose to subscribe and migrate after seeing its value. I see attempts at direct psychology change at any scale as trying to swallow the ocean (unpleasant, unending, and without purpose), and a bit too controlling. Perhaps the divergence I describe above is my misinterpretation of the "improve the alphabet" comment.

Your thoughts?

On "Integrating time and information to leverage experience". This clause doesn't convey meaning to me. I need more of the fundamental concepts you're working with to comment specifically. In general, time and information are already integrated, as a fundamental tenet of the cosmos (matter/energy, space/time, information/will). It's our recording methods that are not integrated. As far as leveraging experience, I don't understand what you mean by experience: recorded experience, interpreted/imagined/remembered experience, or actual experience?

I don't understand enough of the notation and structure of your information to be comfortable with it. Is there a "User's Guide" I can refer to?

In reviewing your material on line, is it necessary to show these references and links in detail in the body of the text? I'm sure these artifacts have value in terms of searching, linking, and referencing, but they don't seem to convey any meaning in reading and understanding the material. They look like what the database application folks refer to as "system data" - data needed to control the application, which has no meaning as content.

It confuses me and blocks the flow of reading and assimilation to see all of these interjections (I'm a speed reader, so my tendency is to try and resolve the information subconsiously - which the interjections hinder). Why not just use a marker (*, #, 1) similar to a footnote or endnote, without trying to introduce added coding that has no meaning in the sentence being read? In the same sense, what do the numbers on the left mean in relation to the content? More system data? Why not hide them? I went through the same discovery in my approach, thinking that the hierarchical codes of my system had meaning to anyone other than the designer and database administrator.

People want to see immediately meaningful content, not system codes and artifacts. The only time these codes and artifacts seemed useful was when people wanted to see context, navigate a tree, do a quick search, or reference, but never in reading.

Sincerely,

Roy
From: "Roy Roebuck"

P.S. I'm enjoying our discussion.

Thanx.