Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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@f... +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
|
