Friday, April 23, 2004

Here's what I've been thinking about in the meantime. This is a list of ideas to blog about that I kept during my hiatus. I hope to follow up with an entry on each one. Compare “pov is worth 80 IQ points” to “a good notation” Dunbar Number Governance vs. Management Network Encapsulation (IFaPs) vs. Software Encapsulation (APIs): related to declarative vs. imperative, decoupling ends (how it is used) and means (how it works) Adapting is both changing how something is used (finding new niches for system as is) as well as changing how something works so it can be used in more ways (changing system to fit new niches) Evolution is not about “fit”; it is not survival of the “fittest”; play with the fit/fittest idea to accommodate Rorty’s apparent distinction between fitting reality vs. mere prediction/control. All evolution is co-evolution: spirit is not coming to know itself in the world, it is co-evolving What is history? History is recycled into the future since we can discover it. History is a theory we put on the world to explain the world. “Predicting the past.” (What fossils should I expect to discover.) History is the narration of the world. Or the contextualization of the world. It is the result of our interaction with the world. Textual “histories” are artifacts we produce (outputs) that then become inputs as things in the world to be (mis)read in our (mis)reading of the world. How does this jibe with Keith’s assertion that the only ahistorical/acontextual directions are entropy and “increasing historical richness”. Evolution from name binding to structure binding. Follow up to blog entry: http://radio.weblogs.com/0126951/2003/10/09.html#a64 . Name binding binds a scalar or structure to a name: reification. “A natural consequence of expandability is competition. Competing definitions should be accommodated, with some means for ranking them according to quality.” (http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/od/Existing_Automatic_Linking_Systems.html) This seems profound. To translate it to my language: “A natural consequence of extensibility is competition.” This leads to the realization that competition occurs on both ends of the hourglass: extended uses (users) and extended implementation (providers). This leads to the realization that competition only occurs when there is some common (standard) to compete within. This common standard is the result of some form of cooperation! Thus all competition is coopetition. Cooperation and competition are a duality/dialectic. Dialectic is the process view of duality, which is the information (data, material, static) view. What is the relationship among binding, naming, reifying/reification. “Data Encapsulation” analogy to sw encapsulation: packet terminology uses “data encapsulation” to describe packet headers and trailers Look for commonality among beaver dams, spider webs, bees nests, bird nests, in other words: complex extended phenotypes; especially look for ones that may be linked to sexual differentiation; see if symbiosis is involved in such phenotypes (or is the extension the symbiosis) Think about Semantics = data + behavior point Look into Universal Data Elements (UDEF): http://www.udef.org/ Is a legal way around the SOAP prohibition against looking in the body to use an xpath pointer in a SOAP header, eg, WS-BizContent? Make the business protocol argument. MOA to SOA is creating models that are biz protocol models. Hybrids/Symbionts: Semiconductors; semi-pro (amateur publishing); transforms “As the standard history from the Internet Society notes, the "key underlying technical idea" of the Internet was open architecture networking - the ability to link together completely different networking technologies provided they followed the appropriate protocols.” From Netcraft. Generalize to: the "key underlying technical idea" of SOA is open architecture process networking - the ability to link together completely different business processes provided they follow the appropriate protocols.” 4:36:27 PM    comment []  trackback []

Back and Badder Than Ever. On Wednesday March 17, 2004, just one week after my last entry, my new IBM T41 laptop drive died. Of course I did not have a recent backup of my weblog. So my drive was sent out for data recovery. Yesterday, I finally got my drive data back. Apparently, I didn't lose anything. So here I am, ready to blog again. Hooray! I've missed it so much. 4:33:30 PM    comment []  trackback []