It took me awhile to figure out why Kenneth was sending this to us, but I think I get it now. FYI. Mark >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:30:31 -0400 (EDT) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from >["Kenneth Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 5 01:30:29 2001 >Received: from mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (mail.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.8.18]) > by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA17546 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:30:26 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (qmail 6313 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2001 13:27:51 +0800 >Received: from unknown (HELO yu) (202.106.28.149) > by mail.tsinghua.edu.cn with SMTP; 5 Jul 2001 13:27:51 +0800 >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "Kenneth Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "SqueakList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "SqueakPWSList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "INTERDIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: kickstart discourse >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:32:25 +0800 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="gb2312" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 >Importance: Normal > >Hello Ger, >thanks for kicking the discussion. > > > > > What is the span of control you see for your discourse-arena: > >First I want to see it abstractly in OO terms so that >I may derive a good interface for distance collaboration. Though it >is easy to describe a physical system and its objects for simulation >and interface purposes, I am having trouble getting started with the >phenomenon of 'discourse' - active inquiry zones. > >We can use this >very topic of discourse as a normal example -- someone suggests the strange >alternative/interdisciplinary topic on a main listserv (linguistic listserv >and >OO programming listserv), and then some people jump over to it. Maybe the >better technique is to keep it a cross-posting on two/three lists until it >is >evident that it needs to be discussed in a separate room. I may try this. > >A physical object (box) will have attributes of width, height, units, or >color. >In an object oriented description these attributes are encapsulated in the >'object' along with methods to read and change these attributes. You send >messages to the objects to get them to respond to an inquiry or change >their attributes. This sounds like object discourse. > >An object in Discourse is what? It calls for a thorough 'problem domain' >analysis. This is where I'm at. > > > If you want to bring-in also culture differences you could look at work > >I'm interested in the cultures of inquiry (newly forming interdisciplines - >like object oriented analysis), or look at any call for papers or new book >list; there you will see the 'glowing' stars of discourse. > > > A pragmatic tric is to set behaviour rules for the discourse-activities > > that neutrilze "normal behavior" > > So more close to organizing web-discourse on the web: > >Interesting. There are cases where the 'non-normal' discourses have more >interesting relationships with each other then to their own disciplines >(like >genetics and object oriented design - actually those are two very normal >discourses - but they were once non-normal). >This shows that discourse is a >separate parameter from discipline. > > > > > How can we give a webdiscourse the quality of a good live discourse? > >Asynchrony is a good option for discourse; not new, there was always >letter writing. In general of course, you must match passions I suppose, >within micro-discourses. That's what I call 'discourse particles' but the >people in the 'discourse particle' community have a normalized definition - >which won't stop me from using my own definition :) Particle metaphors >are a part of physics and music discourse also. > > > > > What we mostly use at this moment is threaded discussion, starting with > > some statements. To keep the overview in the different direction the > > discussion can go it works fine, but I miss some parts that are > > available in live meetings: > >I am not that interested in that goal. People in teleconferencing are >concerned >with this - or making virtual reality as veridical as possible. I am more >interested >in synthesized graphics and sound, more than pictures and voice. This is low >data, low veridicality, high conceptual development, >added dimensions which data spaces afford - synchronous/asynchronous >for example [that's the difference between a chat space or moo and a >threaded >discussion]. A Moo has the interesting property of showing organic >structural >growth - different from say dividing discourse space into 'logical' >categories (the bio room, >the physics room, the linguistics room, etc). That's one important >limitation to overcome - >that's the 'integration' challenge [cross-postings]. That's why I think the >'discourse particle' >metaphor is good, dynamically forming micro groups (threads say), that have >temp >life spans - but doesn't add to the volume of main listservs. > > > > > 2. Most of the time a thread dies, but the last statements in these > > treads are seldom the inspiring ones: how could you mark the interesting > > statements/conclusions and put them in a kind of list. Again you could > > introduce a voting round for the top-10 statements (should be visible in > > another window) > >assigned to the archives - digital libraries are an integral part of the >digital >discourse space. Another good application area - instead of giving >the task to the 'summary group' to edit and give a final report, there >should be a way to garbage collect the trash, and keep the good stuff. >Maybe the citation/access/hits statistical way, but have a human safeguard >in before you permenantly delete some documents. (big question - who >decides what to keep - not the datastician (librarian) but the discourse >community itself. > > > > 3. You also want to bring in other materials to illustrate your point: > > for this we use the "one statement on every leaf in a discussion-tree > > with the possibility to put attechements to each leaf. I am looking for > > a real tree-view, so you can see the leaves and their attachments in an > > overview. > >A metadata issue; annotation. Film and music files (mpgs) have this >ability; so of course does digital library data. Or maybe you're talking >about >strategic linking. I have a 'Swiki' up where I can upload and attach a >graphical >Squeak project to the page. What I want to do is to also link the Moo and >Listserv to the structure. In other words, if you create a room in a Moo, it >automatically >generates a listserv for the room; a room has exits and entrances which >could >mean a 'cross-posting relationship.' The key again is organic growth and >death - not making a priori assumptions outside of the discourses own >activities. > > > > (putting it this way the solution goes in the direction of groupware..) > > > > Can you commet on this to bring me back on trail? > >So the issue for me now, is the technique of analyzing a 'problem domain' >in OO terms - in this specific case discourse. However, this is itself a >discourse. >Reflexivity is tricky, even though we are consciously there to make our own >observations of the perceived field - it should be easy therefore. Let's try >to describe this discourse. > >We have an email object, a people object, a discourse object/particle. >We have attributes of the discourse (subject name), communication channel >(email). Then is email an object or attribute? We have methods for say >the discourse object (showConnectedDiscourses). The people objects have >attributes (name, profession). Then the actual content (the discussion) is >managed as string arrays. > >So this would need to be a collaborative project done in graphic form - to >map >the whole problem domain. There is already a technique for this called UML. >I have gotten the Squeak plugin to work in a browser, so that graphic >projects >can be shared, changed, uploaded to a server, attached to the Swiki (text >documentation page). So we could pass a map back and forth and document >our successes on the swiki. > >Again, take a look at http://media.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/~ken/mediabook. you >can >see the moo, listserv, squeak action, and swiki, digital library link, the >class I >want to give with this as the topic, another discussion which has to do with >my >'real' discourse community - computer music association. It doesn't show >much >development or integration yet. Your collaboration helps this task. > >Thanks, >ken. -------------------------- Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing : Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 Associate Professor - Learning Sciences & Technologies. Collaborative Software Lab - http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/csl/ (404) 894-5618 : Fax (404) 894-0673 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Faculty/Mark.Guzdial.html
