---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Bird <seabir
...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
To: Carl Bate <carl.bate.tul
...@googlemail.com>
Cc: David Hunt <davidch
...@btinternet.com>, jschlesin
...@computer.org, nigel
green <nigelpsgr
...@googlemail.com>, davidch
...@btopenworld.com, Chris Yapp
<chris_y
...@homail.co.uk>, Greg Smith <gregmsm
...@btinternet.com>, Mal
Postings <maldini3
...@gmail.com>, Simon Tait <sandet
...@btinternet.com>,
Sally Bean <sa
...@sallybean.com>, Roy Grubb <roygr
...@gandanet.com.hk>,
Adrian Apthorp <adr
...@apthorpia.com>
Carl, apologies you will get this twice. My default is not to use reply all
- and I didn't the first time I sent this.
While VPEC-T provides the main pillars/dimensions for discussion/discovery
there are a whole bunch (yeah that is a Texan technical term) of
cross-cutting items, each of which has relevance to the dimensions.
Forgive me for taking a slightly trite view of this, but I am thinking in
terms of rows/columns. No, not Zachman with the rows and columns reversed,
nor a relational database, but simply a table where we have the VPEC-T
dimensions as the column heads and these cross-cutting concerns as rows. The
intersecting cells then represent the cross cutting concern in the context
of the dimension.
So "Meaning" has different meaning (oh dear, I need to do something about
big M Meaning and little m meaning here...) depending on whether you are
looking in terms of Values or Content.
I don't know how many of these cross-cutting concerns there are, nor do I
know exactly when/if they are all relevant. However, I think that as we use
VPEC-T, some experiences/best practices will help us flesh them out.
Essentially adding to the consultants' armories without necessarily being
part of the descriptive method. Maybe in the current vernaular these cross
cutting concerns represent metadata or tags that we might want to use to
decorate each of the Dimensions.
We have all used favorite techniques, story telling approaches, scenarios,
diagrams, personality, blackmail and probably a host of other things when
facilitating sessions. Getting out what is needed into a suitable form that
everyone can sign up to is what we have to keep doing. So, we should figure
out what our own best decorators are when applying them on real projects. I
anticipate a universe of these growing up - and we in the community should
be choosing from them - one size/one set of tags does not suit all
occasions. There may come a time when a decorator becomes a first class
member of the framework, but we should resist that - the elegance of VPEC-T
is its simplicity.
C
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:02 AM, Carl Bate
<carl.bate.tul...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Hi guys - just wanted to add something to the meaning discussion...
> I'd really welcome developing the concept of AMMMs (autonomous meaning
> making machines) with the group. The idea here is around information
> relativity - that is, while we might agree on agreed standards for
> physicality for all useful purposes of an event (date, time,
> location), what we make a 'happening' mean as people (autonomous
> participants in an information system), we each can only know. I can't
> see into your brain and know what you make something _mean_!. Same for
> policies and content of course - the same policy can be interpreted
> differently. The concept might also extend to discrete pieces of
> software, in so much that a 'meaning' made is as a result of the code
> interpreting data. I think VPEC-T is a natural relative framework. V
> and T for example affect each of our personal 'meaning filters'. I've
> started to write about AMMMs and hope to share a short paper soon. All
> thoughts welcome!
> best
> carl
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:47 AM, David Hunt <davidch...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
> > Fine by me as well
> > David
> > From: John Schlesinger [mailto:jschlesin...@computer.org]
> > Sent: 27 February 2009 06:14
> > To: nigel green; John Schlesinger; davidch...@btopenworld.com
> > Cc: Carl Bate; Chris Yapp; Greg Smith; Mal Postings; Simon Tait; Sally
> Bean;
> > Roy Grubb; Adrian Apthorp; Christopher Bird
> > Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
> > Fine by me
> > John
> > Mobile 07794 353 356
> > ________________________________
> > From: nigel green
> > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:24:47 +0000
> > To: <jschlesin...@computer.org>; <davidch...@btopenworld.com>
> > Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
> > Does anyone mund if I make this thread of emails public on the VPEC-T
> Group
> > and summarise the discussion on my blog? John and David?
> > n
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM, John Schlesinger
> > <jschlesin...@computer.org> wrote:
> > I don't think we disagree. We can use phenomenology to justify VPEC-T -
> the
> > set of events and content associated with a domain via policy is the
> > phenomenon of the system. The understanding of what that means is
> contextual
> > and part of the value systems interacting. The system may think it is
> > authorising while the user may think it dispensing funds for instance.
> > John
> > John
> > Mobile 07794 353 356
> > ________________________________
> > From: davidch...@btopenworld.com
> > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:46:57 +0000 (GMT)
> > To: John F Schlesinger<jschlesin...@computer.org>; nigel
> > green<nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com>; David Hunt<davidch...@btinternet.com
> >;
> > Carl Bate<carl.bate.tul...@googlemail.com>; Chris
> > Yapp<chris_y...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith<gregmsm...@btinternet.com>;
> Mal
> > Postings<maldini3...@gmail.com>; SIMON TAIT<sandet...@btinternet.com>;
> Sally
> > Bean<sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy Grubb<roygr...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian
> > Apthorp<adr...@apthorpia.com>; Christopher Bird<seabir...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
> > Guys
> > Agree on this in terms of our inability to convey meaning ... at the risk
> of
> > alienating John Error! Filename not specified. this is precisley the
> tack
> > that my paper for the EAC conference takes ... I an leaning towards
> > Husserl/Heidegger on this where they differentiate our ability to explain
> > phenonema and our ability to understand phenomena .. meaning comes from
> our
> > "world context" classic example is the hammer ... science and modelling
> can
> > expalin the properties of a hammer but is our view of worldhood that
> allows
> > us to understand what a hammer is for ... think this applies to data and
> > services and forms the basis of good old Ciborra (you just lnew i would
> get
> > that on in as well ...).
> > David
> > ________________________________
> > From: John F Schlesinger <jschlesin...@computer.org>
> > To: nigel green <nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com>; David Hunt
> > <davidch...@btinternet.com>; Carl Bate <carl.bate.tul...@googlemail.com
> >;
> > Chris Yapp <chris_y...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith
> > <gregmsm...@btinternet.com>; Mal Postings <maldini3...@gmail.com>; SIMON
> > TAIT <sandet...@btinternet.com>; Sally Bean <sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy
> Grubb
> > <roygr...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian Apthorp <adr...@apthorpia.com>;
> > Christopher Bird <seabir...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 26 February, 2009 9:26:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
> > Dear Nigel,
> > meaning is a meta-subject I think in the context of VPEC-T. Meaning is
> the
> > 'sky hook' by which humans enable communication. This is a topic the
> > philosophers have debated at some length. Quine and Putnam argue for the
> > 'indeterminacy of translation' which is the core of the problem of
> meaning
> > in the process of communication. I have always maintained that the secret
> to
> > integration is semantics (a posh word for meaning). The only way I know
> to
> > make one system communcate with another is to separate the syntax of the
> > interaction (protocol and formats) from the semantics (meaning of the
> data).
> > The whole process can only work if there is an 'a priori' agreement that
> the
> > event in the sending system is a cause of the event in the receiving
> system
> > (again we rely on the philosophers here - David Hume told us how to
> manage
> > causes and events). This comes from the business. If the business event
> > recorded in the first system requires a consequence in the second record
> > keeping system, then we have our a priori agreement that the first causes
> > the second. That is why business events are a necessary condition for
> > integration and why I like VPEC-T.
> > Yours,
> > John Schlesinger
> > Home Phone +44 20 7833 5930
> > Mobile Phone +44 7794 353 356
> > ________________________________
> > From: nigel green <nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com>
> > To: David Hunt <davidch...@btinternet.com>; John Schlesinger
> > <jschlesin...@computer.org>; Carl Bate <carl.bate.tul...@googlemail.com
> >;
> > Chris Yapp <chris_y...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith
> > <gregmsm...@btinternet.com>; Mal Postings <maldini3...@gmail.com>; SIMON
> > TAIT <sandet...@btinternet.com>; Sally Bean <sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy
> Grubb
> > <roygr...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian Apthorp <adr...@apthorpia.com>;
> > Christopher Bird <seabir...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:41:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
> > Richard Veryard's point (on the LinkedIn Enterprise-as-a-System group)
> > about 'meaning' is interesting as it actually spans all other dimensions
> > (and as such don't see it as 'part of' VPEC-T) but is probably most
> catered
> > for in Values (in the PoV sense) and Content (in the meta sense). But, of
> > course, as Chris Yapp pointed out before, we don't properly explore the
> 'I'
> > of information systems with 5D and that's what
|
