[comp.groupware] interesting groupware reference

xanthian@saturn.ads.com (Metafont Consultant Account) (12/29/89)

The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
points of view with machine assistance.

One of the sidelights resulting from this groupware example is that it
shows the need for a "minimalist" definition of exactly what
constitutes "groupware".  In my own opinion, while telecommunications
and live video may be "nice to have", much more of interest to me
would be starting with groupware assistance for a meeting around a
common table.  The organization and recall of concepts, arguments, and
alternatives for a group considering a complex question, or one
reconsidered after the lapse of a considerable amount of time, is a
task set amenable to machine assistance, and should preferable be
solved before the "bells and whistles" are added to the program of
work.

Discussion?

xanthian@well.sf.ca.us
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available
as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores.

prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) (12/29/89)

In article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> Metafont Consultant Account writes:
-- 
-- The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
-- or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
-- points of view with machine assistance.
-- 
-- Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available

I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi.  This
is something I first read "Lives of a Cell" (I think) by Lewis Thomas
in an essay of his "On Committees."  I heard it figured prominently in
Shockwave Rider, but I don't remember learning much about it there.
Still, Bruner's profuse acknowledgements of Toffler made me wonder if
he of course got it from Toffler.  Future Shock does indeed have some
obscure reference to it, which I haven't run down yet.

It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch
of experts.  This method was devised, what, 25 years ago?  It sounds
like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised
long before any of this was even within shouting distance!

The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to
converge in their prognostications.  A Facilitator devised a
questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him.
These were copied and distributed to all.  Then a second round took
place where everyone answered the questionnaire again.  Apparently,
after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often
emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target.

I'm talking more than I know here.  Sounds like some kind of Focus
Group?  Interesting though.
	J.R. Prohaska
	Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California  (415) 336 2502
	Domain:  prohaska@sun.com
	USnail:  Box 9022, Stanford, CA  94305

lance@embassy.UUCP (Lance N. Antrim) (12/30/89)

From article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM>, by xanthian@saturn.ads.com (Metafont Consultant Account):
> 
> The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
> or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
> very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
> of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
> points of view with machine assistance.
> 
> One of the sidelights resulting from this groupware example is that it
> shows the need for a "minimalist" definition of exactly what
> constitutes "groupware".  In my own opinion, while telecommunications
> and live video may be "nice to have", much more of interest to me
> would be starting with groupware assistance for a meeting around a
> common table.  The organization and recall of concepts, arguments, and
> alternatives for a group considering a complex question, or one
> reconsidered after the lapse of a considerable amount of time, is a
> task set amenable to machine assistance, and should preferable be
> solved before the "bells and whistles" are added to the program of
> work.
> 
> Discussion?

I have seen two examples that relate to the "minimalist" view as a
strating point for groupware.  David Straus, of Interaction Associates,
and others in his firm are developing a Macintosh system that replaces
the posterboard system for facilitating group discussions.  The mac is
operated by a prson at the back of the room who summarizes the
discussion, complete with graphics if they are used by a discussant. 
The record is displayed on three screens:  current discussion, many
reduced screens showing the flow of discussions, and a screen that can
display past notes that are referenced in the discussion.  At the end of
the day, or at breaks, the notes are printed out and distributed to the
participants.  The computers have a low profile once the participants
get used to seeing the notes appear on the screens during the
discussion, and they are actually less intrusive than having a person
walking around the front of a room writing on the wall and tearing off
sheets of paper while the participants are talking.  

The second example is the U of Arizona decision conference center.  This
is a much more hardware intensive system with PC's networked to support
both individual (and team) efforts and inter-group sharing of
information.  Additional software provides a structure for developing
agendas, setting priorities, identifying interests and decision
criteria, and other steps that are needed whether or not a computer is
used to support decision making.

In some discussions about computer support for international
negotiations, a major focus has been on the management of successive
drafts of an agreement, access to past agreements and discussions that
are relavent to the negotiations but which are not in the direct
knowledge base of the negotiators, and access to related international
law and treaties.  Not rich in sophistication, but these simple tasks
would be a big help (of course, that is a lot of textual data to enter
into a system and to index in an appropriate way).  

In part, since I work with people who feel that they can get by without
computer assistance, I favor the "minimalist" approach as a starting
point.  I think by starting with simple tools that facilitate current
practices there will be rapid acceptance of computer supported groupware
and then newer technologies can be introduced.


-- 

Lance Antrim                            Project on Multilateral Negotiation
..!uunet!embassy!lance                  American Academy of Diplomacy
___________________________________________________________________________

levitt@saturn.ADS.COM (Tod Levitt) (01/01/90)

In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes:
>...
>-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
>-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
>-- points of view with machine assistance.
>
>I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi.  
>...
>It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch
>of experts.  This method was devised, what, 25 years ago?  It sounds
>like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised
>long before any of this was even within shouting distance!
>...

It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a
group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It
was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research
was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making. 

newman@inco.UUCP (Bo Newman) (01/02/90)

I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and 
would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others.  

For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching
a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative
rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember)

For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a 
write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been
developed by the RAND Corp.).

PLEASE, if you have interest in this subject area, POST not E-mail your
comments.  The interactive discussion and value added by the group is
greatly delayed by the one-reply one-reader one-reply one-reader . . .
paradigm. (I knew I could get that word in some where!)

===================================================================
:Bo Newman	 newman@inco.uu.net	      uunet!inco!newman	  : 
:McDonnell Douglas Electronics Systems Company (MDESC-WDC)	  :
:McLean Virginia						  :
:Voice (703) 883-3968                                             :
:Fax USA (703) 883-3889	         				  :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
:  ALL STANDARD, NONSTANDARD, and POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY	  :
===================================================================

mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (01/03/90)

In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes:
>-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
>-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
>-- points of view with machine assistance.

Actually, that scene from David's Sling reminded me of descriptions
the CoLAB project at Xerox PARC. I had assumed that what's being
called GroupWare was something similar to that: simultaneous, shared
access to a hypertext structure with a WYSIWES (What You See Is What
Everyone Sees) component.

I've since been told that what's currently being sold as "groupware"
more resembles RCS or SCCS on Unix.

Could someone (several someones, probably) post descriptions of some
of the currently available "groupware"?

	Thanx,
	<mike
--
The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful.		Mike Meyer
My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away.	mwm@berkeley.edu
My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful.		ucbvax!mwm
Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?		mwm@ucbjade.BITNET

CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) (01/03/90)

Summary: I believe that we should aim, in designing groupware, to assist
  communication between people, not just for 'better, faster decisions'.

I do not hold with the idea that computers support decision making
by storing all the 'pertinent' topics for consideration by people.
Phrases like "achieving consensus by considering all pertinent
points of view" imply to me a nice rational, objective,
decision making process.  I dont believe that such things can exist.
I also dont believe that they should.

Consider the work of Terry Windograd and Fernandes Flores in their
book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
communicate.

When people examine the world, they do so through a filter of
their own experience.  We find simplifications of the world in
our language, it is easy to believe that these simplifications
are real.  Take for example the notions of truth and falsehood.
It is easy to believe that a statement is either true or false.
They are not, of course; consider self-reference: "This statement is false"
or nonsense: "The grunky bling on the pimple grog".  How can
we measure the validity of statements like this?  When we try to
cast them into inappropriate moulds it is not surprising that we have
problems.  It is easy on reflection to beware of statements like the
self referential one above, but when we stumble on it in other
contexts we find it very difficult to step back and see it for what
it really is.

Simple statements like: "Ice exists naturally" seem to be quite clear
yet they stand in a background which controls their interpretation.
Try that statement on eskimos, who have no single word meaning
'frozen water'.  Try it on people who work with large amounts of
'dry ice' and who may have a different default interpretation
of what 'ice' is.

Many democratic systems use a questionnaire or a set of weights which
a number of people respond to.  These systems ignore the background in
which the questions were written.  We will see claims that getting
people to fill out these questionnaires does tend to achieve consensus.
Consensus is important not because it shows that people agree but
because it makes people believe they agree.  I would argue that the
only reason that a consensus is found is because people responding are
willing to shift their viewpoint to that dictated by the stream of
questions.  In democratic countries, people are often quite happy to
believe that the ability to vote for their leader every few years gives
them freedom and control. That's good; it keeps the people happy.

We should be very careful when building systems which 'support
group decision making' because many of these systems may hide
their biases too well.  Just as it is hard to step back from the
statement: "This statement is false" it is incredibly difficult to
step back from a questionnaire and see what is happening to your
opinions.  How do we argue with software which, after much crunching and
calculating, says: "Well you all agree, based on the results of the
questionnaire that we will do X."  If X is 'sell, sell, sell' and we
are in the share market and everyone uses the same program the effect
could be interesting.  Of course, that would never happen.

Martin Leadbeater            E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au
Academic Computing Service
SA Institute of Technology                        Phone:   +61 8 3433435
The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia                   Fax:     +61 8 3496939

reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (01/03/90)

In article <6267@inco.UUCP> newman@inco.UUCP (Bo Newman) writes:

>I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and 
>would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others.  

   Delphi has been utilized with computerized conferencing systems.

>For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching
>a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative
>rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember)

   More or less.....

>For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a 
>write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been
>developed by the RAND Corp.).

   I don't know who is responsible for developing the Delphi method, but
a book has been written on the subject:

              H. Linstone, and M. Turoff,
              The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications,
              Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.


   According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing
system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure.


              Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz
              Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,
              IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1),
              January 1982, pp. 82-91.



George W. Leach					AT&T Paradyne 
(uunet|att)!pdn!reggie				Mail stop LG-133
Phone: 1-813-530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
FAX: 1-813-530-8224				Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) (01/04/90)

To see how well the Delphi method works you might try:

   Computers in the 1980s [by] Rein Turn.  New York, Columbia University
   Press, 1974.

Which attempts to predict the technological progress of computers
through the 80's.  Note its publication date.  I have not seen this
book since about 1981, so I would be interested in a short review if
anyone's up to it.

---
	brad sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (01/04/90)

In article <6894@pdn.paradyne.com>, reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W.
Leach) says:
>
>   According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing
>system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure.
>
>
>              Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz
>              Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,
>              IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1),
>              January 1982, pp. 82-91.
>


But like a lot of good work, this was before its time.  Now that real
discussions take place distributed in time and space over these nets,
it is time for a Delphi-like mechanism to evolve, bloating rn even
more 8-)

        lee

drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (01/06/90)

prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) writes:

>I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi...

>The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to
>converge in their prognostications.  A Facilitator devised a
>questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him.
>These were copied and distributed to all.  Then a second round took
>place where everyone answered the questionnaire again.  Apparently,
>after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often
>emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target.

How does this avoid turning into Groupthink?  Didn't David
Halberstam write a book called something like "The Best and the Brightest"
about how the US Vietnam experience was a result of "groupthink"?

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc [the Software Moving Company(sm)]
drd@siia.mv.com

pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) (01/06/90)

In article <10245@zodiac.ADS.COM> levitt@saturn.ADS.COM (Tod Levitt) writes:

>It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a
>group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It
>was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research
>was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making. 

Specifically, Professor Dalkey was codeveloper of Delphi while
a senior mathematician at the Rand Corporation. Still an active
researcher in 1990, he received his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1942!

-- Brad

lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/09/90)

In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:

>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>communicate.

Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/11/90)

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
|In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
|
|>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
|>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
|>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
|>communicate.
|
|Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
|the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
|Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
|their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
|the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

	Ho, ho, this is droll.

	If someone says they are an objectivist, throw a brick at
	their head. If they duck, ignore them.

-- 
  \\\\	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ont.
w \66/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `/v/-e	 BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
_<  \_	 "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo

johnsonr@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Rod Johnson) (01/12/90)

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
>
>>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
>>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>>communicate.
> 
>Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
>the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
>Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
>their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
>the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

Sigh.  It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling
around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of
pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited.

Hugh, there's more to the world then bricks.  Ideas, social relations,
practices, categories, abstractions like `justice', are all part of
the world that human beings talk about and interact with every day.
As Wittgenstein said, the world is all that is the case.  The world is
not just an assemblage of mute globs of matter--it's matter (and more
than matter) as understood, as classified, as experienced; Husserl's
"life-world," if you will.  Wiser men than you or I have called
attention to how critical the role of language is in the construction
of that life-world.  Bricks, beside the fact that they are a product
of culture, which is mediated by language, are comprise a category
that is delineated through language.

The question of solipsism is simply an irrelevancy in this debate, as
is what you appear to be arguing against, which is idealism.  If by
"relativism" you mean linguistic relativity as propounded by von
Humboldt, Sapir and Whorf, among others, well, there are many
varieties of it, not all of which are at all incompatible with your
seemingly realist viewpoint.  The position that the world is
constructed through language has nothing to say about whether bricks
are real or not--but you have to understand the position before you can
assess that.  Read Winograd before you dump on him--he may live up to
your expectations after all.

(In fairness, I must say that the original poster doesn't give the
best summary of the phenomenological position that Winograd and Flores
are espousing.  To say "there is no objective world" is overly strong
and overly simple, I think.)

(straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?)

--

Rod Johnson             Internet: rcj@um.cc.umich.edu
U Michigan Linguistics       (or: johnsonr@thor.acc.stolaf.edu)   
(in exile in Minnesota)    Phone: (507) 645 9804

*** no connection with St. Olaf except as a grateful guest ***

CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) (01/12/90)

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
 (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
> Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
> the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
>[...]

in response to my earlier comment:
>>[...]                                          In this work, Winograd
>>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>>communicate.
The short answer: Yes.  In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is
central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of
the book.  It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through
language, an observation that has important consequences for design."
 [copied without permission]

Let me explain my interpretation, in response to Hugh LaMaster's
subsequent brick question:
>[...]                                                       Edward
>Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
>their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
>the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective,
>brick?

Sure bricks are physical things and they hurt when they hit your head.
Is the brick in Abbey's test 'real' and 'objective'?  That's harder;
I see the test as the communication of an idea.  The fact that you
and I probably have a similar 'understanding' of what a 'brick' is
gives us a similar 'understanding' of the statement.  The fact that
we assume that the person on the receiving end is not facing the
wrong way---or blind---helps too.

The statement contains a large number of implications.  For example;
there are implications that the reciever knows the object is
aimed at them, that they will be affected by this knowledge, that
the affect will be to induce them to duck, that they are not lying
down or strapped to a wall and so on.  You and I don't have to worry
about such implications, they emerge only when there is some kind
of breakdown.  How many times have you heard statements like: "It's a
joke, Henry. You see, if...".  These statements are used to help
resolve breakdowns.

Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement
'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials.  At
the same time, I don't know what a 'Solipsism' is but I know that
Abbey spent a lot of time somewhere where people duck (bow) all the
time, especially when embarrassed by indescreet remarks.  Thus, I can
form an understanding of the statement (even if it sounds a little
wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make
an indiscreet remark]

When expressed to a different culture, it may not be a 'brick' which is
thrown but a 'stick' which is thrust.  It doesn't change the test
changing the brick to a stick but I'd like to see someone change a
building brick to a long, thin piece of wood.

I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be
fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware.  Maybe they
lend support to the idea of a 'minimal' use of technology, where we still
bring people to the same place.  My feeling, however, is that there are a
lot of methods of supporting 'one-place' group work which do not rely on
any technology.  What I want is a way of working with you without having
to fly to the states but I want to see the breakdowns when they happen,
not to have them obscured by the system.

Martin Leadbeater            E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au
Academic Computing Service
SA Institute of Technology                        Phone:   +61 8 3433435
The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia                   Fax:     +61 8 3496939

lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/12/90)

In article <10518@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> rcj@um.cc.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:

>Sigh.  It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling
>around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of
>pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited.

And it drives me crazy when amateur philosophers claim that there is no
objective reality.

>(straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?)

Agreed.  I apologize for not ignoring the previous posting.  I will say no
more on this subject.

**************************************************************************

Has anyone written a good X Window System implementation of something like
Delphi?  It would seem to be ideal.

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/17/90)

In article <6223@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
>

>The short answer: Yes.  In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is
>central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of
>the book.  It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through
>language, an observation that has important consequences for design."

I interpret this statement to mean the following:

"Language has an effect on perception."  I see nothing in it which states
that there is no objective reality, merely that language affects our
perception of that reality.  No one denies that, for example, not being
color blind affects one's perception of "color".  On the other hand,
I question how much the "Whorf effect" really matters.  It is interesting
to note that linguists are divided.  The argument against the Whorf effect
seems to be that a good translation can be made from any known language to
any other, and back again, although the text may be expanded, and
the form is destroyed (in e.g. poetry, where form is important).

>Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement
>'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials.  At

I don't like this as an example of what you mean, because
'drop a brick' is merely a (compound) word which one of us knows and the other
doesn't.  Perhaps there is another example which works better.

>wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make
>an indiscreet remark]

>I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be
>fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware.  Maybe they

I don't see it as fundamental
to groupware, per se, any more than it is a problem for the telephone.  Sure,
misunderstandings arise, but the telephone is still a useful tool, I think ...
I'm not sure how geographic distribution makes a difference.  You can easily
find people with quite different cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the 
same office. 

But, I agree that tools that would further understanding, as well as
communication, would be greatly appreciated.

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117