I also see the synergy. Again referring to the diagram at http://one-world-is.com/rer/dem/slides/img101.gif, you appear to be addressing the "continuous text" content of "words, sentences, paragraphs, and documents", whether "spoken and transcribed" or written originally. I have focused more on the "discrete text" common to "lists, tables, and databases", which are inherently written. So the synergy is perhaps more of a complimentarity.

To reflect my understanding of your SDS, consider the following. As a manager, and also as a certified "Facilitator" and "Facilitation Trainer", I have a strong interest in the "record" of meetings, and references to that record in the "meeting minutes" and subsequent actions and decisions. (Especially since a "meeting", whether formal or informal, written or audible, is the fundamental team process.) This is analogous to some of the stated criteria for "requirement management and tracability" common in outsourcing, system/software development, and other types of projects. "Working Group" minutes from a particular subject domain are often the only basis for establishing initial SOW and for formalizing modifications to contracts and/or contract deliverables.

As a proposal/project manager and proposal/project management trainer, I am constantly emphasizing to staff, clients, and support personnel to "record" and share their ideas, comments, corrections, etc., so this record may become part of the "proposal/project history and knowledge base".

As a contract worker and manager, I am continually trying to retain clarity and linkage between the original SOW, the Proposal Technical Approach, the baseline/funded Contract Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (with its corresponding resources, milestones and deliverables), and the intended and unintended variation from that baseline WBS. Sometimes this variation from baseline WBS is stated as a new requirement or change, is negotiated, and is formalized by a modification to the baseline WBS. Most times it is because undocumented new ideas, distortions, or unstated assumptions creep into the minds of my clients (managing expectations), my staff/support and I (variations in their understanding, or responding to client variations in understanding during direct contact - i.e., scope creep). Somtimes the variation is because we don't pay enough attention to the baseline WBS in the chaos that is often a part of any complex project, and we get off course.

In support of system and software engineers, I am continually trying to help the engineers keep on track in regards to requirement management and tracability described above.

The common thread through these scenarios is the need for a written "record" of words, sentences, paragraphs, and documents that is categorized by its chronology, origin, and context. (e.g., People point their fingers at each other, in blame and accusations during crisis, because they can't point to contextually relevant written and shared facts.) This may involve direct stenographer transcription of meetings, making audio recordings of meetings or conversations and then having a stenographer transcribe them to text, or using the newer voice-recognition technologies to simultaneously make audio recordings of meetings and transcribe recognized words to text for later finalization by a clerk.

In either case, given this written record of a discussion, it appears your SDS tool would discretely label each line of continous text in a shallow outlining scheme, apply some form of time-stamp to the record and its outlined elements, and subsequently reference other recordings using your labeling technique or serve as a reference for other recordings, thus enriching and clarifying its context with each reference.

The technique of creating the shallow outline scheme for the various recorded texts, combined with the detailed decomposition structure of your filing system (Web or local files), thus yielding unique and time specific labeling of textual content, is clear. It provides a useful variance in technique from traditional filing systems, document management, and records management.

The HTML linking between internal elements of different records seems to roughly correspond to the concepts of rich (multiple direction) hypermedia linking found in the hypermedia authoring community, the Hytime linking capability of the SGML community, and the newer Extended Linking Language (XLL=XLink+XPointer) (XLL=XLink+XPointer) (http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/Links) capability of the XML/Web community. Convergence of your current labeling and linking technique toward the XML/XLL standard would position your effort closer to the mainstream of Web activity.

See the Information Recyling diagram at http://one-world-is.com/rer/dem/slides/img088.gif, especially the 1st and 2nd quadrants of the recycling loop.

In either case of continous or discrete information products (records), both can benefit from the use of word-indexing and categorizing technology to extract and organize words and phrases from written information products (whether from an analog/continous source like a meeting/conversation/extemporaneous-letter, or the more quantized/discrete source like a report, form, table, or form letter). The results of the indexed and categorized content would feed-back into the General Enterprise Management Catalogs, to serve as reference and contextual data for subsequent profiling of thoughts, decisions, and actions. I can see where the chronology, line numbering, and unique record-naming of your technique would strengthen the recycling of the continuous-record information products beyond the cursory mechanisms I had envisioned.

Given the above paragraphs, it seems your previous comment on scaling up SDS using the GEM Information Recylcing approach in diagram img088 could bear valued fruit.

Finding the markets and paying the bills is always an issue. I am fortunate in that I have paying work that allows me to explore and refine my concepts as part of the work task. But this does not allow me sufficient time to progress in design or implementation or to position/market the concepts.

The following outline displays my current professional domain, which corresponds to my current work task.

Since your approach and mine appear to dovetail nicely, I'd offer you the opportunity to merge our efforts and coauthor the grant proposal(s) and share in any subsequent grant award for research and implementation. Through the discipline of generating the grant proposal, a byproduct could be a detailed business plan, which we could present to sponsors, investors, and potential clients for more immediate funding. I'm averse to heavy outside investment because I don't want to risk losing ownership of my concept and design. As a side benefit, we'd also be in a position to present our merged concepts at various strategic symposia and conferences, perhaps to include using operational or demontration prototypes.

Given the above, I am interested in investing some of my time in the next few months in exploring the possibilities of a joint effort.

Roy roy@one-world-is.com