440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700

March 11, 2000

03 00050 61 00031101

Mr. Larry Sanger
Editorial Department
4455 Lamont St. Suite #3
San Diego, CA 92109

Subject:   Demo SDS via Web Site


What a welcome project you have!

Nupedia's concept compliments POIMS technology that empowers peopel to apply KM principles of an encyclopedia to organize their daily work in meetings, calls and documentation.

I have worked out a method for creating and assigning multiple subjects to chunks of information so they can be assembled in chronologies of related context to show cause and effect.

What is needed, or at least needs expertise that Nupedia may be able to support, is an over-arching theory, or evan a baseline table, of knowledge classifications. At low levels things get messy and cross-related, but we should able to supply to users a baseline set of subjects, possibly for two or three levels that are common. This would facilitate sharing knowledge structures, which is a big goal of KM.

One way to think of the problem is that we need to design a "sophisticated" keyword system. I do not describe my work as keyword based. I call it

organic subject structure because it uses DNA-like code structures associated with subject descriptions. However, it definitely has keyword characteristics.

I see a good opportunity to integrate the Nupedia concept of external expertise with my program SDS that enables people to build an "encyclopedia" of their life and work, called "experience," as they go along from day to day. People need acess to both types of stuff, i.e., internal and external. Nupedia now seems to make this objective practical.

A predicate to this is understanding the meaning of "knowledge" and "intelligence" within a framework of creating useful tools for people to use day-to-day. Epistomology is related to this requirement. Could you review the definitions of knowledge and intelligence in my paper on POIMS and let me know if this sounds like a direction Nupedia can support. It is pretty delicate, because there is a lot debate about these matters.

Sorry for such a long letter, but your work is very important.



Rod Welch