Stephen D. Williams
Wed Jun 29 21:01:37 PDT 2005
I like both Wikis and MindMaps. I find the latter to be more for
presentation preparation than knowledge management, although the
permanence of a master hierarchy can help there also. Wikis need
MindMaps (or something better that subsumes the mindmap features).
I want the best of both plus real semantic knowledge representation in
an easy way (i.e. Wiki easy), plus generalized knowledge processing. I
know what part of the solution looks like, but the rest is still elusive.
Ken Meltsner wrote:
>Hierarchical outlines are the worst way to capture knowledge, except
>all of the others -- Timothy Lethbridge did a dissertation on this a
>long time ago and showed that an outline approach was superior to the
>then-popular graphical tree displays (IIRC).
>I think the solution is to allow multiple hierarchies by building off
>of tags. Tag items, build hierarchies with tags, organize items based
>on one of the hierarchies. If you name the hierarchies, you end up
>with a relatively flexible modelling tool. If you don't like outlines,
>start with the items, and let the tags drive the structuring.
>Of course, my skills and time are inadequate to the task. Too bad,
>since I'd like to have a tool like this.
>" Lethbridge, T. C. (1991, May). "A Model for Informality in Knowledge
>Representation and Acquisition", Proc. DARPA-sponsored Workshop on
>Informal Computing, Santa Cruz: Incremental Systems, pp. 175-177.
>"This extended abstract summarizes how we are handling informality as
>a fundamental aspect of our paradigm for knowledge representation (KR)
>and acquisition (KA). We have developed this paradigm as a result of
>several years of experience with industrial application of our
>research KA system CODE [SKUC 89]. One of the most striking
>observations from this experience is that people need to be able to
>work at any level of formality (or informality), and to freely mix
>such levels. Among various things, our paradigm attempts to systemize
>the formality spectrum in knowledge based systems. "
> Lethbridge, T.C. (2000), "Evaluating a Domain-Specialist Oriented
>Knowledge Management System", International Journal of Human-Computer
>Studies, to appear
>"We discuss the evaluation of a tool designed to allow domain
>specialists to manage their own knowledge base. We present the
>evaluation as a two-phase process: In the first phase we assess
>whether the tool has met its objectives of allowing those not trained
>in logical formalisms to effectively represent and manipulate
>knowledge in a computer. By studying use of the tool by its intended
>users, we conclude that it has met this objective. In the second phase
>of the evaluation, we assess what aspects of the tool have in fact led
>to its success. To do this we study what tasks are performed by users,
>and what features of both knowledge representation and user interface
>are exercised. We find that features for manipulating the inheritance
>hierarchy and naming concepts are considered the most valuable. Our
>overall conclusion is that tool research must involve this two-phase
>approach if the others are to learn from the work -- the research has
>much less value unless it can be determined which features should most
>profitably be adopted by others."
swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
More information about the FoRK