« KM principles | Main | Knowing Knowledge »

September 06, 2006

Comments

Denham Grey

David,

Thank you for your comments.

I hold a very different view of the nature and value of knowledge. In a complex world, it makes sense to probe, sense and respond rather than sense, categorise and respond. (See Snowden). It helps and adds value to become a conduit and connector rather than a container or a vault.(Read Siemens)

Content is created during learning rather than in advance of learning. People do not want visit, posess or own YOUR content; they wish to mash, mix, amalgamate your content into THEIR creations, sites, programs and activities.

Help them on their way is my thinking

David Locke

It's not just mashups. Any software program encompases at least one domain, at least one paradigm, at least one ontology--all of which boils down to a conceptualization as a set of related concepts.

The scope of the conceptualization is a competitive issue around market segmentation. It is also a matter of what cultures are involved and the relative priority of those cultures as expressed in the enabled task performance and user interface. It is also the playground where requirements volitility is put in play, not because the requirements change, but because the relative priorities assigned to the cultures change as the politics and passive agressiveness of the customers play out.

Beyond the mapping of a concept is the insistence that a given concept not have a politicized definition, but rather be seen as a set of concepts tying back to their own ontologies, tasks, and interfaces.

A concept map should be drawn from the perspective of a single functional culture, rather than a generalist "mashup" that is stuck "on" a culture at its best.

Artichoke

Hi Denham,
Like visual mapping and think C-maps provide powerful pedagogical approaches to improving learning outcomes - but what I really wanted to do was thank you for your comment on Knowing Knowledge blog - is insightful and has been a catalyst for new thinking for me today
ULearn06: Mousetrap and pingpong ball communications

David Locke

Served C-maps would be problem for proprietary knowledge. I'm sure your business can prosper by sharing your knowledge with your competitors, and telegraphing your competitive moves.

It's wonderful that knowledge should be free, free as in cheap, easily accessible, and worthless. Only knowledge that isn't free provides any business value. By the time a deal is retail, the profits have been run out of it.

Eliciting knowledge isn't the same thing as explicating it. And, tacit knowledge is still waiting around for explication before it can ever become explicit enough to C-map.

Is the C-map capable of manipulation via XSLT?

The comments to this entry are closed.