Supporting tables in web design
Jan 12 11:23:28
Test site availability from around the globe
Nov 7 0:53:22
Clamshell - an OpenID server
Jun 20 5:33:06
Writing Strategic Initiatives
Mar 6 3:08:15
Writing a strategy document
Mar 6 3:00:53
How times have changed.
I'll give you a simple example. Try using the new Google Sites using IE6 and then try again using the Firefox 3 release candidate. The difference is simply astounding.
While any documented, open standard is better than none at all, I have to agree with Rob Weir when he says:
[Does] a standard ... [represent] reasonable engineering decisions, not just for that one application, but for general use? Or in ISO terms, does it represent the "consolidated results of science, technology and experience"? ...
[L]et's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document formats: text color and alignment. I created six documents: word processor, spreadsheet and presentation graphics, in OOXML and ODF formats. In each case I entered one simple string "This is red text". In each case I made the word "red" red, and right aligned the entire string. The following table shows the representation of this formatting instruction in OOXML and ODF, for each of the three application types:
At a meeting a few weeks ago with Fujitsu representatives, I heard about their BToPPe framework. This is a system that can help to ensure that companies understand all relevant dimensions of investments which are made.
I hadn't heard of this framework before, but found it interesting:
Essentially, it's just a SWOT analysis, but focusing the enterprise on overlapping domains that may impact on the potential success of a project. For complex issues, it may be a good tool to examine possible impacts in a structured way.
XMLKit is a bundle of useful XML conversion and validation programs using batch files to simplify their deployment and use. Available programs include:
If you've been trained in Computer Science, there's a good chance that you see problem solving as primarily about breaking down big problems into lots of small, solvable problems.
(Alternatively, you may have learnt to create solutions to small problems independent of the big problem, which might then be usable when solving the big problem, but either way, it's the same pattern: small used to solve big.)
The drawback with this approach is that it leads to a tendency for reductionism; the idea that the universe is just a big problem waiting to be broken down into ever-smaller problems that need solving. The ideal reductionist position is to prove everything from the theorems of physics (dealing as it does with the fundamental particles of the universe).
There's a book called "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. While I wouldn't really recommend the whole book, it did contain one experimentally-supported concept which I found interesting.
In essence, the experiment tested the idea that humans operate according to either social norms, or market norms.
If true, this would explain why some companies struggle to achieve effective collaboration: their environment emphasises market norms, and thus the what's-in-it-for-me principle wins out.
On the other hand, if the company achieves an environment where social norms are dominant, effective collaboration is much more likely.
In an ongoing debate on actKM about the relationships between knowledge and information, Foucault's concept of pouvoir-savoir has been raised by Michael Olsson. The original quote is here:
Â« Il n'y a pas de relations de pouvoir sans constitution corrÃ©lative d'un champ de savoir, ni de savoir qui ne suppose et ne constitue en mÃªme temps des relations de pouvoir... Ces rapports de "pouvoir-savoir" ne sont donc pas Ã analyser Ã partir d'un sujet de connaissance qui serait libre ou non par rapport au systÃ¨me de pouvoir ; mais il faut considÃ©rer au contraire que le sujet qui connaÃ®t, les objets, sont autant d'effets de ces implications fondamentales du pouvoir-savoirâ€¦ Â» (Â« Il faut dÃ©fendre la sociÃ©tÃ© Â»)
I have a confession to make.
Most of Web 2.0 leaves me cold. All this hype about Wikipedia, social networking solutions that will magically sustain themselves and revolutionize the world (Facebook, I'm looking at you) is generally just so much marketing bullshit, frankly.
So I tend to yawn a bit about books that yammer on about harnessing social power. But after reading the Ars Technica interview with author Clay Shirky as part of a review of Here Comes Everybody, I had to revise my opinion.
Ray Sims has done a sterling job in assembling
43 54 different published definitions of Knowledge Management.
As most people who have worked in the area know, one of KM's commonly quoted flaws is that there isn't one "gospel" definition of KM.
I thought it would be interesting to work through the definitions and summarize how these definitions talk about KM.
This is a follow up to my previous proposal on xpatch.
Joe has rightly pointed out that XPath is not sufficient to handles XML files where ordering is not guaranteed. For example:
<attendees> <attendee name="Dream" status="Confirmed" /> <attendee name="Desire" status="No reply" /> </attendees>
If I want to update Desire's status, but don't know a priori which order these elements will be returned, xpatch won't work: