Pieter Wisse
What follows are excerpts, taken from my email correspondence during the years 2002 to 2005.
9.1
Perhaps it is even worse than we think. Looking at young children behaving,
they seem expert adaptors, switchers etc. of behaviors. So what really happens
in education is that we unteach them contexts. Indeed, how much more could they
learn when the human capacity for contextual differentiation is reinforced,
rather than obstructed?
9.2
I'm still struggling to raise interest in metapattern. What a huge gap lies
between rhetoric of innovation and people's actual behaviour. Effectively,
conservatism rules.
9.3
I couldn't miss the similarities to my own predicament with metapattern. To
me, it's so obvious that its deployment offers huge practical advantages. I
don't believe, though, people are willingly suppressing such innovation. Who
needs to be paranoid, when frustration is bad enough? I'm afraid they just
don't see ‘it’ from within their traditional paradigm and then feel awkward
about reacting. Well, it's stupid, anyway.
9.4
It's so &*&^% obvious that a richer approach is required for
coordinating information at the scope of open interconnection. Metapattern is a
formally rigorous, conceptually grounded mechanism for precisely balancing
differentiation with identity. Isn't it amazing that also database software
companies aren't interested yet? Everybody still seems stuck to an old,
limiting paradigm.
9.5
Everybody up to cabinet ministers argues improvements are imperative but
when it comes down to action, each government organization still wants to
safeguard its autonomy through information self-sufficiency (such
pseudo-autonomy is a trait especially strong in Dutch culture; for it is
difficult to image a country where people are in fact more interdependent) at
the expense of the citizens (but who cares?). Nothing much changes, except that
loads of money are ill-advisedly spent.
So, it really is a struggle to find an opening. I'm probably too naive (but not
about the problems; about twenty-five years ago I held the job of coordinating
information systems for one of the Dutch government ministries, i.e. Foreign
Affairs). Likewise, I haven't been able to raise interest for metapattern yet
in the academic community on conceptual information modeling. I'm aware the
additional dimension of situation/context establishes a richer paradigm, and
changing one's paradigm is especially difficult. Despite the problems in
information management that people simply cannot solve with the old
paradigm, there indeed seems to be a huge obstacle for them to change it.
9.6
I've invested to the point of near bankruptcy in developing metapattern as a
tool for conceptual information modeling and KnitbITs as the corresponding
implementation tool. Regretfully, I'm not yet attracting paying customers. It's
not because of useful criticism, though. There simply is no interest with the
people I've contacted so far to have a look at what I'm convinced is
breakthrough technology at the scale of the Internet. At least conceptually, I
believe I'm well ahead of the so-called semantic web. Bluff?
9.7
Are we both really arguing from another side of a paradigm shift? Have you
read 'Flatland'? The two-dimensional square is touring the three-dimensional
world where, in a flash of abstraction, he refers to the possibility of worlds
with even more three dimensions. His host, a sphere if I remember correctly, is
greatly offended and hurls the square back into the two-dimensional world he
originated from, to live unhappily ever after. So in contrast, did we, for
reasons I don't quite get, survive an attack of spheres? Are we allowed to
enter worlds beyond their traditional dimensions?
Let's be honest. Ours is not an easy paper. But then, papers only get easier
again after the other side of a paradigm shift has become sufficiently
populated. I find that it is simply impossible to popularize — what we believe
are — necessary and sufficient 'dimensions' by just dropping a few.
9.8
In my lecture, I have to enlighten an audience ranging from politicians to
programmers on the 'architecture of e-government.' I will make the brave
attempt to have the two hypes, one on 'architecture' and the other on anything
prefixed by 'e,' cancel each other out.
9.9
I'm also still busy with general guidelines for so-called e-government.
Nobody seems to take an interest, though. Rhetoric about networking abounds,
but in the meantime every minute government institution aims to maintain its
splendidly isolated position.
9.10
The dilemma is that the people directly involved cannot appreciate the value
of constructive criticism. So, mostly, I don't bother.
9.11
The idea of a paradigm shift explains why it takes
so long (and why pioneers are not likely to benefit commercially; oh well,
don't let me be too pessimistic).
9.12
I am still working at creating problems awareness.
It involves running the risk of being seen as the messenger of bad news. The
trick, of course, is to let somebody her- or himself articulate a problem for
which you — what a coincidence! — just happen to have the solution available.
After many centuries, it is now the routine approach for medical doctors
etcetera. I haven’t yet reached that stage.
9.13
For several years already, we even have a working
prototype to show for it, too. Regretfully, it doesn't make a difference. Not
yet.
9.14
Difficulties getting acceptance for metapattern
etc. notwithstanding, I feel confident to point at opportunities in the area of
e-government.
9.15
In view of increasing scope for information services I really find an
infrastructural offering beyond what is now known as the semantic web
compelling. My R&D company Information Dynamics has already done a lot to
prepare metapattern’s implementation at the level of technology (an additional
control layer for — distributed — relational databases, web services etc.). We
have a working prototype as proof-of-concept.[message to Microsoft, November
25, 2003]
9.16
My experiences attempting to collaborate with suppliers have so far not come
out successful. Their focus is really on their own product; they're not 'open'
to assimilation (which, I admit, is precisely what accounts for commercial
success). But viable approaches for dealing with complexity are 'in the air.'
In this respect it's actually amazing how long metapattern is still uncontested
(which is, at the same time, a problem).
9.17
You can effect change sure enough if you can partition a 'project' into the
smallest of steps whereby people can perceive each step as easy 1. for
themselves and profitable 2. in the short term. Some change, however, doesn't
lend itself to such decomposition (without serious reduction). The proverbial
example is the paradigm shift, which requires an all-out change in attitude
almost right from the start of change. So, we are confronted with a dilemma.
Over time, some momentum may build. When, say, the culture has slowly effected
enough of a paradigm shift, the potential for successful stepwise break-down
may finally be available.
9.18
Now if we remain inactive, we're sure that we don't 'help' such an
evolution. That's why I favor to engage myself with change. Whether that really
helps?
9.19
I wouldn't know how to criticize their ideas constructively in their own
terms. It seems there is a dilemma involved in applied philosophy. The
complexity lies in digging the tunnel, resulting in easy passage. However, the
'passage' that they propose is largely illusory; it's just not there. It is
therefore practically, i.e. not 'just' theoretically, unavoidable to return to
their assumptions on tunnelling. Of course you are right to argue how far we
may retreat to foundations and still call it engineering. (I agree the metaphor
of 'foundation' is already biased toward engineering, too.) If you ever want to
address such issues for information modeling in general in your magazine you're
most welcome to ask for a pertinent contribution on my part.
2002-2005, web edition 2006 © Pieter Wisse