Chuck,
I was working with what I thought were terms being used in the thread to
denote certain ideas. I'm not necessarily committed to "specification"
as meaning what was implied by the various posts before mine.
I agree that a spec is formal representation of something that may not
be necessarily so strict, well-defined, or well known. (I also agree
that intentionality is only one aspect of designing.) What I meant to
suggest is that there's an internal and an external aspect to intention.
The internal part is a cognitive thing; the external part is a model
of the internal part that we use to express the internal part in
situations involving multiple agents.
Indeed, I have found that externalising things (e.g. writing them down)
can greatly improve the understanding of the thing. I have found this
to be true personally (hence why I enjoy participating in this list) as
well as when I teach/assess students.
I was also suggesting that an intention is static in that it is content,
and that the reasoning agent, which is dynamic, changes the static
intention. You wrote that "...intention as a process of resolution
that is not always clear or fully expressed...." I'm just saying that I
prefer to think of the 'process of resolution' not as intention but as
operating on intention.
In this way, there is a certain similarity between on the one hand the
static intention and the dynamic cognitive agent (call it 'mind' for
lack of a better word) and on the other hand a static real-word entity
and the dynamic physical agents that operate on it.
This 'symmetry' appeals to me and has been useful to me in research and
in teaching. Your mileage may vary.
Cheers.
Fil
Charles Burnette wrote:
> Fil
>
>
>>You said below "But it does (to me at least) have the merit of applying
>>uniformly to
>>both intention and specification. And (to me at least) the broader the
>>applicability of a model, the "better" it is.
>>
>>How's that sound? "
>
>
> It sounds terrible to me! The model isn't broadly applicable much less
> better. (A dubious contention in itself.)
> An intention comes into being as a goal oriented response to an unresolved
> situation. A specification comes into existence as a way to formally
> represent a single intentional resolution of a situation. A specification is
> a fully expressed intention not an unresolved intention that is being acted
> on. Jan and Tiu are right in treating intention as a process of resolution
> that is not always clear or fully expressed - as a specification must be. An
> intention is not static until it is satisfied (perhaps by a specification if
> that is what is intended) I see no merit at all in "applying uniformly" to
> the two concepts (whatever that could be.) I view intentionality as the
> mental agency through which all aspects of designing are guided, organized
> and managed. It is not designing itself -just one aspect of it - despite
> what Klaus would have you think I mean by it.
>
> Best regards,
> Chuck
>
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|