Patrick Logan suggests: One metaphor (for WhatsNextAfterWebServices?) is formulating: Conversations. Maybe in one sense something like http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_CBKk1NpvUwJ:dda-direct.com/goi/conversations%2520for%2520action.html+WhatsNextAfterWebServices+Patrick&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Another question, what current systems and applications most closely embody these thoughts...?
The Swedish Speech Act Gang has been combining Flores-style conversation ideas with the REA (ResourceEventAgent
) economic ontology to form economic conversations. http://www.dsv.su.se/~prasad/Publications/WorkInProgress20021129BP2.pdf
Their work may be more rigid than WhatsNextAfterWebServices?
, but maybe it's moving in a fruitful direction.
Think of economic associations built around programmer sweat equity negotiated between Weblogs with an extension of TrackBack
Along the same lines, although it may not seem like it: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/elephant.html
The common thread is Commitments: promises from one person (or party) to do something in the future for another person (or party).
Commitments usually imply or require agreement by both parties.
The Flores cycle (and REA) include fulfillment of commitments, which again must be agreed upon by both parties.
Commitments could be represented as objects or tuples or Web resources a la REST. Web resources are apt because commitments often come in networks and hyperlinks work naturally as commitment links.
From another angle, related to Patrick Logan's further comments:
A combination of REA and Flores-cycle-conversations can replace monolothic ERP systems with peer-to-peer coordination between spheres of responsibility.
Perhaps some HistoricalActions?
, such as the one which established the ArpaNet?
on an "Open Documentation Model" might provide some new insight as to the components required for success:
You will note the open and unstructured and non-authoritarian basis in the statement "the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas" in which anyones' ideas were worth consideration, as coming from anyone, anywhere, with anything to say on the matters under consideration. See also an earlier page on this wiki CallForCollaboration
OK, I read http://soapbox.weblogs.com/2001/04/19
. I must be missing something significant. If someone wants something bad enough to ask someone else to do it for/give it to them, and someone else really does it for/gives it to them for the agreed upon price, everyone is happy? Doesn't everyone in McDonalds
right now know how this works? And most of them watched Survivor, so they know telling the truth about everything is a losing primate social strategy, even though most will lie about knowing that. So help me out. What is the implication I must be missing? -- EricHodges
Those dining in McDonalds
probably know this. Those writing computer programs may want to read UnderstandingComputersAndCognition
as background toward getting their software closer to this knowledge.
for a neat way to have the ConversationForAction