Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:08:32 -0500
| From: | Bill Bearden |
|
BBearden@BCL.net Reply-To: unrev-II@egroups.com |
| To: | unrev-II@egroups.com |
| Subject: | Glossary - just breaking the ice on this task |
Rod,
[Responding to your letter on June 1, 2000, commenting on my letter submitting an initial glossary for the DKR project...]
In a real DKR, a glossary like this would be linked on a number of dimensions (as would all the DKR content). Each entry would be linked to all occurrences of the word in the DKR content. Each of those links would be rated based on relevance and "educational background requirement". Also, there will be "dependency" threads running through the terms. The DKR will even have links to the same term in DKRs covering other topics.
At this point, the only dimension that seems practical is attribution.
I can see trying to add some links to the transcripts of the colloquium sessions.
And the data/information/knowledge entries are simplified versions of what I found in your meeting minutes in your 5/17 journal entry (www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/05/17/160031.HTM).
As far as examples, I gave a few but I agree that this should be filled out. My goal was a beginner's glossary. When presented with this material the first time, I remember thinking I wish I had examples. Also, I intentionally ordered the terms in a way that I thought would be useful for a person unfamiliar with Doug's work.
As far as other dimensions, such as "nuance", I believe a DKR will have multiple levels of glossary. Along the dimension of "depth" there would exist a number of incrementally more detailed definitions of each term. Some terms, for instance Knowledge Management, are the subject of entire books.
And yes, the definition of DKR is brief. If we could really define that in simple terms, we would have our requirements spec., wouldn't we? :-)
Sincerely,
Bill
Bill Bearden
BBearden@BCL.net