[topicmaps-comment] on the moral character of the innovator

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

<header> This is a general discussion which you are invited to participate
in by joining:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KMPro
This message is also posted at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/files/ethics.htm </header>

Please forward as appropriate.

***


As a side note, the URL on BCNGroup Charter extension has been edited to
correct a problem (I clearly made) related to independence of ownership of
IP from newly emerging IP securities markets,

http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/charterCloning.htm

Please review this and continue offering suggestions.

{ Some interesting history on IP securities trading in the mid 1990s is
available - from John Norseen...  }

***

A review of the literature from general systems theory may the proper first
component of a course on the ethics of KM.  We simply MUST give a firm
foundation, from a real published literature, so that the notion of private
experience of knowledge and the notion of the socially acknowledged
ownership of knowledge can be properly discussed.  The discussions in KM
forums often get hung-up on this very issue.

The provisions of the Clinger-Cohen act should be modified to require the
inclusion of a KM Ethics curriculum component that addresses this issue of
reductions to IP ownership (particularly in light of the related issues
regarding the accounting problems in Corporations.)


This hang-up is part of the folk psychology (to use Paul Churchland's notion
of folk psychology) complex that I have written about regarding the
paradigmatic block by funding institutions such as NSF and DARPA.

http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/to2OSTP.htm

***

Here is how I would frame this issue.

The individual experience of knowledge has to be accounted for in such a way
as to not be reduced de facto to ownership status - except through very
specific processes such as public disclosure, or specific disclosure within
a business unit.  The standard industry practice of signing **blanket**
non-disclosure agreements violate this principle.  We can discuss this if
any one thinks that this is an unjustified claim.

However, social organization often functions based on such reductions to
ownership.  The individual knowledge within the group is considered to be
owned by the group.  This is a mistake, technically, and knowledge sharing
is largely replaced with power plays and strategies for retaining narrow
self interest.  The knowledge ecology never happens.

http://www.ontologystream.com/forums/Acappella/keco.htm

Of course this is the well understood problem of how to represent Tacit
knowledge from experts whose positions of authority depend on this Tacit
knowledge not being known.

I know that Art has a great deal of insight into this issue.

***

Before I close this communication, I should point out that the

BCNGroup IP to adopted technology vetting process model

and

Tri-level architecture

are both part of what I would include in a Advanced Studies component of the
KMPro certification program.

I have always assumed that I could be supported in teaching this material,
and that others such as Art Murray and Peter Kugler would be supported in a
similar teaching effort.  However, the natural tendency in KM certification
is to so intermingle the marketing of the certification program with the
content of the certification courses, as to make my contribution and the
contribution of others virtually impossible.

The above comment is not intended to be sore grapes, really, but an effort
to help the marketers to understand the negative over-all effect of
marketing being the dominate activity in some (if not all) KM certification
programs.  This selling of something that one does not really have does not
help the economy (this is the claim), or the development of a new knowledge
science.

The value proposition to the marketing type personalities is in a derived
legitimacy of KM via curriculum extensions in ethics and knowledge science
(via the notion of "Advanced Studies".)  If this legitimacy might be
codified by a Clinger-Cohen provision, then the value proposition would
generate income if not wealth to KMPro.  Why not, is this not deserving of
wealth?

This work is also where I place much of the value proposition that I offer
to some investor who might see the potential in this work IF some minimal
financial resources where available to me.

Again, to point to history and say that the failure of KMCI (for me) was
that my, almost two year, investment in time and thought lead me into a trap
where my work was either being systematically discounted and distorted (so
as to look bad in the eyes of others) or was being promoted by the KMCI as
being in their curriculum - while not supporting a system that allows me to
teach and be compensated for this effort.


***