[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Yes, but at Robert points out, that is evolution mediated by feedback.
 
The Spin Service would spawn a series of fact checking queries just as
a spin-laden speech spawns paranoia, acceptance or boredom.  The fact
of spin or lieing doesn't prove which business object sent the message
to the presentation layer to do so.  Politics is the application of the right
theory to the right audience to ensure believability.  Spin algorithms use
weak clues as evidence of spin, not of its believability.  This goes straight
to an issue of Semantic Web applications:  trust.  I blogged a similar topic
recently with regards to if open source is a business model, but that's too
touchy-feely for this list.  So in another direction:
 
In a lattice of theories, there are two challenges:
 
o Choosing the selector (business object) to choose the theory
(eg, don't let sales guy talk to tech guy if the goal is to get a
technical selection; don't let the technical guy talk to the
customer if the goal is to sell the system - there are means
to delegate if boundaries are crossed)
 
o Is the system federated (shares the same values) or
confederated (values the same things)?
 
len

From: Michael Champion [mailto:michael.champion@h...]
  
Deep sigh.  That will kill the value of the algorithm, for the same reasons that widespread availability of antibiotics evolves (oops, sorry Mr. President, I mean "creates") antibiotic-resistant organisms. Serious liars will learn how to lie better once they can get real-time feedback about what the spin detector would say about their spin.  

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member