Our laboratory helps us work together so that all three may be accomplished to make sure we have a de facto standard. We each have different priorities, and our participation shapes the priorities of Minciu Sodas.
We want to use tools for thinking.
Therefore: We need an import/export standard (so that we could afford
to invest our thoughts in our tools).
Therefore: We need converters (so that we could design the standard,
demonstrate the standard, and lobby for it).
Therefore: We need an interactive multiconverter (so that we could
encourage the development and use of converters).
Therefore: We need a use case matrix (so that we could organize the
design, use and sponsorship of the interactive multiconverter based on
genuine need rather than tools).
Therefore: We need a Thoughtful
Wishing (so that our use case matrix would be well thought out
and relate the activity of thinking to the reasons why we want to think
in the first place).
First, I'd like to distinguish between a use case matrix and an interactive multiconverter. An interactive multiconverter is a software program that walks us through the use of a "Thoughtful Modeling Language" as we transform our aggregates of thoughts from one software tool to another. It helps us apply a converter from one software tool to our standard, then perhaps helps us do some restructuring within our standard (such as change a web into a tree), and then helps us apply another converter to move our thoughts to a new software tool.
With this in mind, it is a milestone for us that Ben Darnell (Thoughtstream) and Stephen Danic's (Lucid) were able to transform thoughts from Stephen's collaborative website Lucid to Ben's Thoughtstream for the PalmOS. We would like to organize an entir community of inventors and developers who can contribute to the development of an interactive multiconverter in a modular way.
One way to organize this community is to start with a big matrix, a big square table, with all kinds of tools listed on the side and on the top, and with instructions on how to transfer between the tools in each square of the matrix. Given any pair of tools A and B, you could either see that there is no way to transfer from A to B, or that there is simply an explanation of how to do it, or it might be completely automated. Our community could work to make this matrix as useful as possible, and the interactive multiconverter would get built on top of it.
However, the nature of our standard is that a tool - good or bad - may be used in many ways, and therefore the matrix should pair not tools, but rather tool-use combinations.
This would be great if it all came about on its own, but I think the leadership of our laboratory makes this much more plausible. However, for our laboratory to do this, we have to be able to show to our sponsors the value of such a multiconverter. We want to be able to show that corporate users gain value from the tools. In other words, we can't presume that the tools are valuable, but rather must focus on showing their value, or at least, their intended value.
So really, what I would like is a matrix of use cases. What would we, as thinkers, like to be able to do, what would we wish for? This is our Thoughtful Wishing.
I am realizing, that this is not so simple. For example, I recently
purchased a Handspring handheld device with the Palm OS. I am
finding
that data entry is fast enough for writing down several words (names,
addresses, calendar items, PINs, etc.) but not for sentences (ideas).
I
see that there is a very nice foldable keyboard that (hopefully) makes
data entry fast enough for ideas. Then I could take my handheld
and
keyboard with me wherever I go, for example, when I go for day long
walks in the countryside, and spend an hour or two in isolation,
entering ideas. It turns out that this is possible for the Palm
handheld, but for Handspring a keyboard will be available only in the
summer. Even so, this might be a usage case, and our laboratory
could
explain what the solution is, and the cost is, to be able to do such
a
thing, and we can suggest or recommend ways to do this. Our matrix
can
then show how this solution can be connected to the other usage cases.
However, what difference does it make, whether I type the ideas, or
speak them into a dictaphone and have the voice converted into text?
Or
write the ideas on paper, and retype them when I get home? These
can be
comparable (or not). So the real question now becomes, what can
we wish
to do with thoughts? Here are some examples, I invite you to
add your
wishes:
See Thoughtful Wishing.
These kinds of usage cases for the mind (and tools that extend the mind)
are what is valuable to our sponsors, or at least, the people they
serve. They define what it is to think. However, they suggest
that we
take one further step, which is, why think at all? What is the
reason
for thinking? Why think?
I think that our natural goal is to address "why think?", and then relate that to the usage cases for the mind and the tools that extend the mind, and then show how particular tools can be suggested for these usage cases, and then consider how to switch from tool to tool by means of our matrix, and actually implement this by means of the interactive multiconverter, which makes use of particular tools and converters. We will need to work on all of these levels at once, but work on the various levels will support each other pragmatically.
I am comfortable with this picture and will be able to write more about how companies will be able to benefit by sponsoring work on this, especially the usage cases. I have a hope that the question "why think?" actually links usage cases, so that every time we switch from tool to tool we are actually invoking this question. If I could get a little bit more of a handle on this, then I would feel sure that this is the right track. So I invite your examples of "why think?" and "usage cases of the mind".
Currently, authors suffer whenever the
software they use gets discontinued and they are forced to abandon
the
thoughts they have tended. Our standard will allow authors to choose
from a variety of software tools to accumulate, organize, and reflect
on
their own thoughts. More generally, this will foster the bundling
together of experiences, in the form of images, text, voice, cash,
applets, and so on. The exchange of such experience packages
will be
especially meaningful across Infrared connections, arguably the most
personal way of exchanging electronic information. Infrared is
the
wireless technology by which individuals beam information, for example,
from one handheld device to another. This social act may be thought
of
as a kiss, an "irdakiss".
Potential Sponsors:
| Benefits | Beneficiaries | Implementation |
| Choose tools with the features you need or prefer. | All of the above, and:
Networks of devices, including IrDA. |
Design converters to transfer notes between our standard and file formats of various software tools. |
| Edit your thoughts and their relationships within streamlined environments. | All of the above, and:
Document management. |
Design editors for work directly on our standard. |
| Make your book of thoughts available to several authors and tools simultaneously. | All of the above, and:
Synchronizers |
Design synchronizers that make use of our standard. |
| Access your book of thoughts through a variety of access devices supporting a variety of software tools. | All of the above, and:
Storage & retrieval |
Store information on the web or anywhere using our standard. |
| Benefits | Beneficiaries | Implementation |
| Switch between tools seamlessly, each of which has a clearly focused function. | Tool integrators | Integrate suites of software tools based on our standard. |
| Organize thoughts instead of documents. | All of the above, and:
User interface designers |
Develop new user interface paradigms based on our standard. |
| Document decisions made and actions taken by executives, systems developers, business rule experts and object programmers. | All of the above, and:
Systems integrators |
Apply multiple user interfaces and access devices to implement a policy of communicative documentation. |
| Exchange experience packages consisting of photos, voice, cash, etc. organized by a structural poetry - haiku, reflecting your personal style. | All of the above, and:
Hardware platforms, "Irdakissers" |
Clarify the social act of exchanging experience packages. |
Andrius Kulikauskas, Director of Minciu Sodas, is a founding member of the newly chartered TopicMaps.Org standards group.
IrDAKiss directional proposal Minciu Sodas submitted a directional proposal for our standard through the IrFLOW SIG at the April meeting of the Infrared Data Association (IrDA), www.irda.org. Minciu Sodas is now pursuing our standard through TopicMaps.Org rather than through IrDA.
Reach out to community
Who are we involving? Do you use software for organizing thoughts?
Do you make software tools or develop standards? We are asking you
to provide us with cases where you would like to transfer aggregates of
thoughts.
I think that our next proposal for TheBrain will focus on the benefits of using TheBrain. In particular, what are different manners (or styles) in which a knowledge worker might use TheBrain, and how might they shape their own thinking in a helpful way, and how they might share these benefits with their colleagues and superiors. I will need to be in closer touch with Anna Herbert to find out what TheBrain would find most useful. Thesis: Modeling is for Reexperiencing Reexperiencing is relevant when we shift modes. So what kinds of mode shifts is TheBrain involved in?
I want to finish setting up the Thoughtful Wishing usage matrix as the basis for Sponsoring Advisorships by which companies can join as sponsors of our work with definite benefit. The matrix will include opportunities that we notice and promote (such as regarding large format printing), and questions that we could raise to clarify these opportunities (such as "What thoughts would I put on my wall?"), and forums where we could raise these opportunities on behalf of our sponsors (such as a forum for knowledge managers). [Andrius Kulikauskas, 6/00]
Funding for the laboratory