Information Environments for the 21st Century

Alejandro F. Reimondo aleReimondo at smalltalking.net
Thu Oct 2 17:55:11 UTC 2003


Hi Trygve,

> I'm new to Squeak but old to Smalltalk (since 1978). My retirement project
> is definitely "blue plane", and its scope is expanding at a frightening
> rate. The short form: "What should the information systems of the 21st
> century look like?"

Thanks for ask about it!
I am really interested in "Information Environments for the 21st Century".
First of all I think we can´t try to define "what should the IS look like"
 because if we do that we will define only one point of view.
And we must try now to preserve diversity in all our activities
 related with "virtualization of reality" (or instantiation of imagination ?
:-).

The most interesting proposal of your question for me is
 when you ask for "Information Environments".

Let us think (a few lines) in the word Information.
Information => In-Formation
So... the information is not a resource nor a product,
 information is not an object... so it can´t be "handled", added, captured.

In-formation is a process. A process of formation of what?
A process of formation of knowledge if the support is a mind.
A process of formation of aModel if the support is a virtual
 environment (like smalltalk).

In the 21st century the real problem is to teach how to apply science (an
instruction received during a huge amount of hours in our lives) without
hurt the environment.
In a world where the (remote)communication is granted, it is very important
to teach how and when do NOT apply intelligence.

For this objectives it is very important that the virtual medium:
- preserve diversity and multiple POVs
- have instant reaction to changes
- promote sensitive perception (not only visual interaction)
 and the use of feeling to predict the future (not only science)
- evolves (as a concequence of human interaction,
 and not as a concequence of directed change)

We must focus on the refinement of the Smalltalk Ambience concept to get a
medium to let humans learn how to preserve differences (not standardizing or
reducing things to fundamental objects) in an stable environment (an
ecosystem) without rebooting when an object is broken (or a zero is down the
line in a division :-).

The environment must:
- not be an object (nothing more inappropiate that Smalltalk=anObject).
- handle concepts not modeled (must incentive modeling but without forcing
to think that all "is an object")
- let people related with informatics stop thinking in languages as the only
way to do things (or formalization as the only way to act right).

> The watchword should be that it should support the users' mental models,
> including programming: "Put the user in the driver's seat"

I do not have the class "User" in my model :-)
Only have hands touching objects.
All people that need to use a virtual object must first understand that the
environment exists and he/she must act there with humankind.

> Who is the user and what does his/her environment look like?
>   1) A person in the role of a private citizen.
>       Top level model: an object model holding his information
>       as tangible objects
>       (not a class model, which is a different kind of animal all
together)

For the process of in-formation where you want to instantiate
 "your"(any) model in another's person mind, it is very important
 that your model is all defined as concrete/touchable/visible objects.
If your objetive is to help in the in-formation process of a new
 model (his/her model); you must provide an environment capable
 to handle his/her learning path of crystallization of objects from
 diffuse ideas (ghosts).
In the second objetive, a figure is not enought; no model
 can help (because the model is in the future)
 any meta-model can force/seduce him/her to follow your path.

>   2) A person in the role of a professional team member in an enterprise.
>       Top level model: an object model holding his information as
>       tangible objects and supporting his/her cooperation with others.
>       (not a class model, which is a different kind of animal all
together)
>   3) A person in the role of an applications programmer
>       Top level model: an object model holding his programs as
>       tangible objects
>       The "programming language" is basically a modelling language
>       Rephrasing Alan:
>        "A modelling language is what the programming language designers
>         forgot to put into the language."

There are "things" that you can't talk about in concrete, but you know that
it exists. The environment MUST provide support to things that are not
objects (are ghosts, and can´t be defined formally).
A languaje is only a very powerful tool for applying formalization
(reduction); but it is not sufficient for evolving in an ambience (no
guaranties about ambiental stability).
Languages are used to define rules and clases (elements of a formal theory),
so you can change the rules; but it is NOT related with evolution, it is
simply change. The change is "directed", evolution is observed in
restrospective (is the word we use to say that "something" has happened -in
the past- ).

For example you can say that Smalltalk has evolved.
People using programming languages has "changed" languages.

Any language is diferent from the preceding language, they do not preserve
identity.

Oops! another important topic on an information environment.
-it must preserve identity through time.
(must have identity - a been? )

>   4) A person in the role of a methodologist
>       Top level model: an object model holding metaclass objects defining
>       the above modelling/programming language
>   5) A person in the role of visionary....
>       Defining the meta-meta objects that form the methodologist's
>       environment
>       These objects are created by magic and have to be very stable.
>
> The ideas are mainly from
>   - Smalltalk "everything is represented as an object"

Oops! this idea is ok for teaching the object concept in basic courses; but
does not resist deep analysis. To define an object reveals the use of a tool
(reduction), but does not make all an object :-)
Examples like school of fishes and other emergent phenomena in virtual
environments show that not all "must be"/is an object.

>   - UML, with its meta-levels. An application model is an instance of UML,
>        and UML is an instance of MOF.
>   - The UML specification defines a complex class hierarchy. This
hierarchy
>        is simply a comment to the real substance; which is the objects
that
>        are instances of the defined classes.
>   - Richard Pawson's Naked Objects project where information is presented
to
>        the user as tangible objects.

UML is only a language.
We can work with languages but also we can use the environment as an open
ambience (open as is "open system", not closed to a formalization).

> and much more. Why should our meta-meta language restrict us to punched
> card input and line printer output, i.e., BNF.
>
> But the main point is that we have to leave the old life cycle:
> "Code-Compile-Load-Run-Stop". The Smalltalk idea of a continuously
> executing world of objects is clearly superior. (I belive the execution
> thread of my current Squeak image started some time back in 1972).

Smalltalk is like an Species, each of us has only an instance (or a fiew
instances :-).

cheers,
Ale.



> I have done some experiments with an executing UML where I modified the
> Smalltalk classes, meta-classes and meta-meta-classes to conform to the
UML
> architecture. Confusing, but informative.
> See http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/UML2.0-U2P/UML_VirtualMachine-131.pdf
>
> The morphic architecture looks like an important step forward towards
> tangible objects. It breaks with the ST-80 MVC, but does not seem to
> greatly invalidate my original MVC from 1978. See the original proposal
> here: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/mvc/index.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Trygve Reenskaug" <trygver at ifi.uio.no>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: Information Environments for the 21st Century


> Hi all,
> I'm new to Squeak but old to Smalltalk (since 1978). My retirement project
> is definitely "blue plane", and its scope is expanding at a frightening
> rate. The short form: "What should the information systems of the 21st
> century look like?"
>
> The watchword should be that it should support the users' mental models,
> including programming: "Put the user in the driver's seat"
>
> Who is the user and what does his/her environment look like?
>   1) A person in the role of a private citizen.
>       Top level model: an object model holding his information
>       as tangible objects
>       (not a class model, which is a different kind of animal all
together)
>   2) A person in the role of a professional team member in an enterprise.
>       Top level model: an object model holding his information as
>       tangible objects and supporting his/her cooperation with others.
>       (not a class model, which is a different kind of animal all
together)
>   3) A person in the role of an applications programmer
>       Top level model: an object model holding his programs as
>       tangible objects
>       The "programming language" is basically a modelling language
>       Rephrasing Alan:
>        "A modelling language is what the programming language designers
>         forgot to put into the language."
>   4) A person in the role of a methodologist
>       Top level model: an object model holding metaclass objects defining
>       the above modelling/programming language
>   5) A person in the role of visionary....
>       Defining the meta-meta objects that form the methodologist's
>       environment
>       These objects are created by magic and have to be very stable.
>
> The ideas are mainly from
>   - Smalltalk "everything is represented as an object"
>   - UML, with its meta-levels. An application model is an instance of UML,
>        and UML is an instance of MOF.
>   - The UML specification defines a complex class hierarchy. This
hierarchy
>        is simply a comment to the real substance; which is the objects
that
>        are instances of the defined classes.
>   - Richard Pawson's Naked Objects project where information is presented
to
>        the user as tangible objects.
>
> and much more. Why should our meta-meta language restrict us to punched
> card input and line printer output, i.e., BNF.
>
> But the main point is that we have to leave the old life cycle:
> "Code-Compile-Load-Run-Stop". The Smalltalk idea of a continuously
> executing world of objects is clearly superior. (I belive the execution
> thread of my current Squeak image started some time back in 1972).
>
> I have done some experiments with an executing UML where I modified the
> Smalltalk classes, meta-classes and meta-meta-classes to conform to the
UML
> architecture. Confusing, but informative.
> See http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/UML2.0-U2P/UML_VirtualMachine-131.pdf
>
> The morphic architecture looks like an important step forward towards
> tangible objects. It breaks with the ST-80 MVC, but does not seem to
> greatly invalidate my original MVC from 1978. See the original proposal
> here: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/mvc/index.html
>
> Enjoy
> --Trygve
>
>
>
> --
>
> Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
> Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
> N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
> Norway
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list