Community centric service methodology à [home]

Conversation between Dr Roy Fielding and Dr Paul Prueitt

Continuing discussion à [49]

Hi Paul,

I am in Switzerland at the moment (for work).

Paul said: I admire the work you did in the thesis....

Thanks.

Paul said: My sense is that information science and information technology has become twisted by some part of human nature. So that OASIS and IEEE and W3C would be at such odds with each other. A type of paralysis has arisen, perhaps you agree, perhaps not.

Somewhat. It is the nature of standards institutions to be conservative and territorial. Very few real standards are developed within the framework of a standards body -- they are usually implemented first and only standardized when vendors start competing over features.

Paul said: I assume that you are still young (under 40) since your thesis was in 2000Mine was in 1989 and I was 39 at the time. As I grow older I seems to look back and feel that I was so asleep about reality. Perhaps even now.

40, actually. My major was international politics and physics in the mid 80s, before my experience working as a software developer caused me to switch to computer science. For me, the creativity in this field is unmatched elsewhere.

Paul said: I do not have any great desire to be involved in any of the standards bodies, because I do not see that the process is balanced - being not at all focused on the issues of non-locality which some might wish to ignore but which are nevertheless part of natural reality.

It is very easy to succumb to the view that the rest of the world is somehow working against you for any given endeavor [1]. In reality, the rest of the world is simply focused on their own endeavors, and anything that disrupts that focus is going to receive a negative reaction. [2]

I suggest you take some of the vast amount of time you seem to spend communicating with people and invest it in creating something that is truly innovative [3]. The fact of the matter is that words are not sufficient to convince anyone of a point of view, even when they are framed in incontrovertible logic, and you really don't need to convince them anyway. Just build a prototype, measure it for the properties you seek to produce, iterate until a clear answer is obtained, and then publish the results [4]. If it solves someone's problem then they will adopt it (if able), or perhaps not if they are more interested in their own solution process than the solution itself.

Much of what you write is tied into the philosophy of Peirce and your method of argument parallels his life. Note, however, that it wasn't even successful for him, at least not during his lifetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce

There are very few people in this world with sufficient leisure time to figure out what it is you are trying to communicate and then, on top of that, try to find a way to apply it to their own (rather pressing) problems in their own work. [5]

A better way is to solve their problem first and then let them explore your more philosophical ideas on their own time (that is one of the great advantages of the web -- we have made it possible for almost everyone to publish their ideas worldwide). The problem, of course, is that people need a compelling reason to choose to read one source of information over others. That is why you have to solve a problem first. [6]

Roy T. Fielding < http://roy.gbiv.com

Chief Scientist, Day Software < http://www.day.com

Continuing discussion à [49]

[1] I know that people are not working against me, but the system is moving in a way that we all are a bit uncomfortable with. My work has been at such a high level of abstraction that people cannot make the connection between what I am talking about and what is happening. The transition bridge I am looking for is transformational, not because I am looking to make a transformation; but rather because my way of looking at things allows me to see the general system properties and to thus engage me in the problems that we are all uncomfortable with. At least this is how I personally understand my personal situation.

[2] This observation is very true, in my opinion. If the foundational principles of American capitalism where grounded in a on going and open discussion of moral implications, then the endeavors that we are engaged in would be moving us in the direction of some balancing to the separation of wealthy from the mass majority who have horrendous personal financial problems.

[3] I have developed a number of demonstrations of true innovation, and these are just oriented wrong. I agree that words are not enough, and when my finances allow I have dedicated myself to building Orb (Ontology referential base) technology. This technology is based in a simplification of knowledge representation that shifts the origin of information interpretation form the “suppliers” to the “users.”

[4] I agree that this should work, and have done precisely what you suggest over and over again. But the barrier is that IT vendors are in business to make money not necessarily to solve clients’ problems completely. A dependency on future work obligations motivates the vast majority of IT practices.

[5] Peirce lived in a different time, but perceived aspects of reality related to what has become the foundations of a new discipline, and interdisciplinary discipline whose possible existence is inhibited by the existing structure or academic departments. What the National Project is designed to do is to solve the “incorrectness of IT” problem (discussed at [47]) at the only place that it, this entrenched problem) can be solved.

[6] You have clearly walked this path, one similar to mine.