Re: [xml-dev] XML-DEV list - prior art

[Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca>]

I didn't mean to denigrate crazy ideas ;-)

Len Bullard wrote:
> Note that the paper that made it possible for Lockheed Martin to build
> stealth aircraft was an obscure publication by a Soviet researcher.  In the
> country of origin, it had been ignored.  It was recalled by an American
> engineer/mathematician.   Had any of this been based on citation, stealth
> would have taken a lot longer to develop.  The ideas for using flat surfaces
> and fly by wire were known but the math in that paper sped things up
> critically and enabled the US to take a two-decade leap over their
> adversaries.
 >
> That is why one wants to be deeply aware of all of the crazy ideas out
> there.  Some of them work when the right questions are asked.  

I certainly didn't mean to denigrate crazy ideas ;-)

> As to prior art and the patent problem, it is better to have peer review
> than to depend on an overburdened small staff of government reviewers.
> Otherwise, just like unfiltered search results, it is easy to game even if
> expensive.
> 
> The problem of Sterling's suggestion as I understood it was cumulative flat
> citation.  It could work if prior art and domain was bundled into linksets
> that themselves become the reference by which claims are vetted and if that
> checking is highly automated (eg, TVM indices augmented by abstraction of
> logic chains that can be proofed).

I believe I oversold the whole peer review thing -- when the real issues 
are a) the relative openness of the peer review process, and b) that the 
value is in the market of ideas, and how work rates in that market.

I see the software world as having a very different value statement, and 
a different market process. So although you could do it, I suspect most 
s/w firms, or developers, would see no benefit to doing so.

> len
> 
> 
> From: Ian Graham [mailto:ian.graham@utoronto.ca] 
>  
> This is a fine idea, but I don't see how it could work.
> 
> The 'value' of a scientific (or any academic) paper is in the paper's 
> new ideas -- and tin he references / footnotes giving it context.
> 
> Peer review determines if a paper is 'good enough' to have potential 
> value, or not.
> 
> Insufficient references (or badly formed ideas) means you don't make it 
> past the gate.
> 
> The whole culture of academic writing is built around this model and 
> this notion of value.
> 
> But the value for code is entirely different - value is functionality, 
> cost, time to market, etc ...
> 
> So unless you change the measure of value, this idea won't fly.
> 
> My 2 cents, anyway.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 

-- 
Ian Graham
H: 416.769.2422 / W: 416.513.5656 / E: <ian . graham AT utoronto . ca>
<< Don't send ZIP files, or your mail will be discarded by my spam filter >>