Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Having wrestled with the problem for a quite a while now, I
> don't believe it was an overreaction. At the core of my
> most recent proposal were two insights:
>
> 1) The difference between "understanding oriented" and
> "goal seeking" can be modeled as a view of a structure. (01)
Maybe that's true, if all the data is already in there, and /if/ they do
indeed combine/align neatly. What if they don't?
I'm talking about the process of creating the data. I don't see how
understanding can be fully acquired (i.e. with disruptive insights)
without allowing many things to emerge during the process, perhaps
including the node type used in a diagram/tool. (Is an item a question,
assertion, thing, hallucination? Maybe it is all of those things
according to different perspectives.) (02)
In contrast, with goal seeking, someone can at least nail the goal
(idea) first, and the types required for articulating the A to B of
reaching an objective can be more fixed because a person or team already
knows the term under which objects and ideas are being approached (that
is, in order to get something done). (03)
Just my take on things. (04)
--
Peter (05)
--
This message is archived at: (06)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=43D54157.2090502@concept67.net (07)
|