Hi Ger

Now that Jim Benson has given up stalking me I can get back to re-reading your emails again.
Owing to the fact that each time I scan them I see a different nuance. Your language does require a bit of study to get your exact meaning. Please don't feel  you have to change anything it is up to me to adjust my tuning that is all.

I read the url about levels and concluded, that like CRC, it is missing the point. It is returning from the "wilds" of Networking, Peer to Peer, to the traditional (disliked ) MIS (hierarchical) Structure-Function Model. 
This may not be what you mean by Yo Yo but, this trend looks like it to me: Yo Yo-ing between both methods. 
Charles used to pride himself of the fact that he combined both the methodologies in his HierNet (a hierarchy riding on to of a network).
I refused to accept that interpretation: It contradicted Kants understanding of the "Separation of Powers" and which is even anchored in European Social law.
It is only recently that Charles has come to agree with me. He is maturing.
He now regard his Purpose Statement or Goals to be more significant than he had first thought.
The HierNet is much more than just the manifold of three levels:
1.) Concept,  2.)Logistics, 3.)Physical; (the manifest CONDITION of their tripartheit struggle).
It is 0.) Unity (of all of these three Concepts into one absolute whole).
This Unity is Absolute, Totality, CONDITION-less.

Ger ! I cannot stress enough the importance of the concept of the Absolute for it is Reasons only task: to bring this Systematic Unity to our awareness and appreciate the Idea of Freedom itself. The children of this powerfull Absolute Idea are CAUSE and EFFECT.
Do you see what I mean?  Why Kant is such a great thinker and not a mere philosopher.
We are now able to build your dream Ger.
Today. because we finally understand it.
Ciao
Justin



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl 
  To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:59 PM
  Subject: RE: Three Threads Of Squeak


  Following the link to  of Alan in another discussion, I found on the website of Mitchel Resnick http://www.media.mit.edu/~mres/ 
  nice examples of active essays http://el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/projects/circles/ this time in StarLogo (you need a plugin)

  I also took a look in his article list and found one that hits my current problem: 

  "How to create a design interface for non-technical (and technical!) professors that facilitates them during the construction of educational learning settings" 

  Not only courses, but also for problem based learning, cases, virtual companies, project group approaches etc.
  For courses we had a successful prototype, I earlier refereed to: 

  http://130.89.152.133:8888/EducationalDesign/uploads/2/TeletopLearningRevised.doc 

  What these designers (as normal problem solvers?) want to do is all these things together.. surfing between levels in their design space..
  What I need most is a tool that helps them to differentiate (VISUAL ! !) between these levels and the different things you do on these levels with the possibility to go back and forth during design. Made me cry: "I need a yo-yo-editor!"

  This leveling focus I did find in this article, made me rethink..

  http://www.ccl.sesp.northwestern.edu/cm/papers/levels/levels.html

  I think you refer also to these levels during design, and give them common sense names. thanks, I will work further on that idea. 

  ===========================
  We, people of ten Dutch Universities and Colleges united in "Dutch Digitale Universiteit" are working on the adaptation of an Educational Markup Language, designed by the Dutch Open University. It is offered to the IMS learning design group to become a subset of the IMS standards (Of course are their other candidates for this)

  Core of this EML is to deliver an XML based, platform independent description tool for educational arrangements, ending up in Learning Design Specifications, not only a tree of related resources but also descriptions (Not prescriptions!) of conditions (also nested) that can be followed by the runtime system when you unfold it there.... Maps to Alan's idea of "extreme late educational binding"?)
    
  (for the DTD of EML 1.0 see: htttp://eml.ou.nl)

  One of the activities is to design authoring tools for people who are not used to read XML-tree's on a daily base and still being in control of the levels of design. More Tips?    



   -----Original Message-----
  From: Justin Walsh [mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au]
  Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:06 AM
  To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
  Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


  Missing attachment
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Justin Walsh 
    To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
    Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:04 PM
    Subject: Three Threads Of Squeak


    Building professional software is like building a, building:

    Three stages:

    Concept        requires   Designer  ~ ideas
    Logistic         requires   Architect  ~ concepts
    Construct      requires   Builder     ~ objects

    One tool, three threads. Designers don't lay bricks and Brickies don't design buildings.

    There are those that just like playing so the above order doesnt matter unless the play is a professional activity. In that case more threads may be added to the list.

    It is not productive to confuse these different threads. It leads to insult and counter insult.

    Generally speaking anyone who has ever been a designer will understand the role of policy, philosopy, religion: in some countries if the building faces the wrong direction nobody will live or work in it.

    Anybody who has ever been a brickie will understand the role of initiate, inventiveness, imagination ie most of the tools we find at the floor level have been created by workers "laying bricks" or to stretch a metaphor, "writing code".

    Sandwiched in between are the Logicians who use yet another set of tools to ensure that Designs correspond with Objects (of design).

    We don't have to like, understand, accept, .., each other. Just respect each other.
    Each has a different vision for Smalltalk that is all.

    Attached is one person view on the matter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20011103/1c9422fe/attachment.htm