[kDev] Why KendraBase?... (was: The idea could be good...)

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The need for KendraBase came about for a number of reasons:

- A general frustration with the non-interoperability of tools that we 
have built the current Kendra website with. I really want a much 
slicker system that presents information in a unified way. People 
suggested using other packages but all have their problems. We want to 
keep the interface simple for a non-technical audience. I first 
mentioned "collaborative systems" in 2001 in this email:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-framework/msg00024.html

- A need to develop the website, the network trial and start up the 
other trials. Up till now I've been tinkering with the website here and 
there to increase functionality. (I'm most proud of the way that you 
join/leave lists through your profile area and never need to know about 
majordumbo commands. ;-) But I needed to get a developer in to really 
build out the site and trials. So, I had a choice: build a tool that 
would enable me to to create and modify the site and trials easily or 
build a more fixed site and trials to exacting specifications. I chose 
the former knowing it would give more flexibility as I didn't have a 
fixed spec for the trials. And after discussing requirements with you 
guys we added a few more things into the pot and came up with 
KendraBase.

- "Let's all come together and try and make this work" hasn't brought 
in developers and I need to get in funding to pay for services and 
developers. Getting funding (and getting volunteer developers) will 
hopefully be a lot easier if we have some code to show and a 
demonstration of people using it. This email in 2002 really sums it up 
the need:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-framework/msg00063.html

- The idea of having a cloud of things and statements about those 
things has come from the need for flexibility when designing the 
trials. We simply don't know what how the trials will develop. It's an 
iterative process. Remember my discussion with Pat?:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-general/msg00110.html
In fact we need all participants in a particular trial to be able to 
describe their information and business practices. Better that they can 
describe it in their own terminology and mother tongue as that makes it 
easier for them. Then good if we can draw relationships between what 
people are saying. That's the kind of model we are trying to build as 
it's very flexible and enables easier sharing of ideas.

On Nov 14, 2003, at 8:44 pm, Dave Cridland [Home] wrote:
> Daniel, how does what's being built *now* - a semantic cloud of free 
> and easy data - relate to a collaborative design system? ... I'm not 
> even certain exactly what a collaborative design tool exactly is

Don't get too hung up on the grandiose terminology. Together with what 
I've said above read specifics in the project plan here:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/wiki/wiki.pl?KendraToolsProjectPlan
And specifically the "live demo" here:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/wiki/wiki.pl?KendraBaseScenarios
and let me know if it doesn't answer your question.

> Oh, and I think you're missing a goal from the first paragraph - "find 
> a way to make people *want* to use the system". Without that goal, 
> Kendra is a worthless system.

I think we've already found the "way to make people *want* to use the 
system". And it is to make the system useful to them. And so we need to 
get their requirements. And so we must enable organisations and 
individuals from every link in the content value chain to participate 
in the creation of Kendra System. And because every participant gets to 
put their requirements into the pot they get a system that will work in 
the way that serves their needs.

On Nov 14, 2003, at 4:39 pm, Phillip Temple wrote:
> ... From what I've seen, this has evaporated into airy discussions 
> about "connecting people" and "semantics" which is already being 
> covered by far more competant people in academia.

First, I admit that "semantics" is a general word for a lot of stuff 
and so will tend to confuse the situation. As far as I can tell it was 
first used on Kendra mid this year and only appears once in the project 
plan. When I use the word I'm talking about meaningfulness. I'm not 
talking about artificial intelligence, no, no. I'm talking about a 
shared understanding that when I say "song" I mean the same thing as 
you. Or when I say "chanson" (a French word) I also mean "song". Very 
simple stuff.

Now, about these "competant people in academia". They are both 
"competant" and they are "in academia". But that doesn't mean they are 
going to provide solutions that satisfy Kendra's goals. We are using, 
as I'm sure many of us do, ideas from academia. But we need to 
*implemement* them into a system that works for us.

I hope that helps.

Cheers Daniel