[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@fiduciary.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:05:56 -0700 (MST)
> So yes, Uche, I unquestionably prefer choice one over choice two. Choice
one responds
> to each new problem (indeed, where necessary each new instance of each
new problem)
> with the advantages of adaptation at the level of each node as well as
at the level
> of the overall order of process, which defines the system as a whole.
Choice two
> relies on the authoritative fiat of a canonical solution. Whence derives
this
> authority? I dunno. In the case of choice one, the authority is qui
fit--it derives
> from the adaptable node within the adaptable system responding
successfully to the
> new and unexpected problem as it is encountered.
Ah then, nil disputandem. I thought if I placed in in such stark terms
that you might prefer the Way of less Reinvention, but since you clearly
don't, it comes down to a philophical, particularly epistemological
difference that needn't be hashed out in the current discussion.
I'll just note that I'd prefer the outcome in Europe if CEN/ISSS succeeds.
However, as I mentioned to Simon, I think ontologies can be used to
support your viewpoint as well as mine.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
