DOCBOOK: on learning theory and distributed knowledge systems

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Please excuse the double posting and forward as you wish.

This is a one time announcement on a new conversation.

****

This conversation will continue only in the public KMPro e-forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KMPro

Those participants in eventChemistry who wish to be involved in this
discussion, please join the other forum.

***

I will be making a proposal here (in a few hours) on a process and a
technology that **could** create a dynamic curriculum (with many content
authors) that covers ALL aspects of knowledge engineering and knowledge
management practice, AND the science foundations of knowledge management.
This content can be made available world wide using KMPro's virtual
technology, at a low cost.  One of more university can accredit the hours
enrolled and completed towards various degree plans.  (Why not?  Who says
that this can not , or should not be done?  )

The proposal is made, by the BCNGroup.org, to Knowledge Management
Professional Society International (http://www.kmpro.org/) in particular...
but has been under development, by BCNGroup founders, for about a decade.
With Doug Weidner's participation and leadership, KMPro may indeed find that
an organic process can be now (this month) enabled.  The process may field
many virtual courses and an accreditation process that changes into a
virtual university specializing in

1) knowledge engineering
2) consultive type knowledge management practices
3) knowledge sciences
4) technical foundations to knowledge technology

curriculums.

The proposal is now in the form of a 19 page document that I will save as a
URL in a few hours.  I am rewriting

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/forms.htm

the new URL will be posted to KMPro e-forum.

***


One of the issues that I feel needs to be discussed, while the group here in
this forum is small and formative, has to do with the qualification of what
is proper knowledge science.  The KMCI certification provides us with an
example of a "curriculum" that is tightly controlled and which does little
more than continue the trend of populating KM positions in industry and
government with airheads.  There is entirely too much illusion in this
certification program and other certification programs.

Certification can become a business, rather than a service to society.
Providing a service to society will cause revenue...  but only if the
service is reasonably priced and the service (in this case - certification)
is actually relevant to the very difficult task that KMers have in front of
us.

In spite of my pleas that the KMCI support my offering of two or three
courses on

1) the theory of perception as seen from the experimental work of Gibson,
Pribram, Edelman and others
2) connectionist theory and practice
3) full text mining methodology

etc..

nothing happens to facilitate this offering.

After all I do have a relevant  PhD, and I have relationships with several
universities, I have taught over 70 university courses, and I have several
decades of effort in the area of virtual education.  I have the curriculum.

There was never any thing other than lip service and positive (but totally
empty) talk about the future and something that would happen next in x, y z
units of time; where x , y and z are vague and deceptive.


On the contrary....

I have been surprised at the progress that Ed Swanstrom has made on

1) building a ANSI process to help in building knowledge science
2) making inroads with several groups of university departments of cognitive
science
3) establishing a economic theory of knowledge exchange

My pleasant surprise here is in contrast to what I have found at KM
professional conferences, in general, where the trick seems to be to yell
the loudest and claim the most followers, and in the KM literature - where
pedigree is much more important then content of original ideas.  Over a
decade of watching this, I have developed the following saying

"It is no longer about being polite."    We have to be truthful and aware
that sometimes each of us, including myself, is simply wrong.  <smile/>

***

No one is perfect....  So my endorsement of Ed's work has some reservations.
(So, of course...  But why not...*s)

***

What I have talked about (for a decade) is a type of automated construction
of validated knowledge in the form of some concept map and curricular
content.  (The Bead Game concept).

http://www.ontologystream.com/area1/primarybeads/bead3.htm

But this is not so easy, perhaps mostly because of the limitations and
weakness of our social institutions.  Where are the universities that are
about to bring a reasonable curriculum to knowledge science?  Where are the
KM professional organizations that do not advertise a certification that is
weak on understanding what human knowledge is and what knowledge sharing in
communities is (in reality - if not in a IT system).  Ed may be closer than
anyone else is here...  but this is hard to judge without looking at the
curriculum.

We need curriculum (from KMCI (?),  Global Knowledge Economics Council
(GKEC), from KMPro, etc) but we also need peer review (on that curriculum)
and a delivery system.  I look to Doug for the delivery system.

So I am offering this proposal....

as a straw man.

Please invite anyone, you know, who knows how to be thought-ful and have
respecting discussion on a difficult topic.

My respects and apologies for my many faults,

Dr. Paul Prueitt
Founder (1997) (with Drs. Murray and Finn) BCNGroup.org
President, OntologyStream