Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Note that the paper that made it possible for Lockheed Martin to build stealth aircraft was an obscure publication by a Soviet researcher. In the country of origin, it had been ignored. It was recalled by an American engineer/mathematician. Had any of this been based on citation, stealth would have taken a lot longer to develop. The ideas for using flat surfaces and fly by wire were known but the math in that paper sped things up critically and enabled the US to take a two-decade leap over their adversaries. That is why one wants to be deeply aware of all of the crazy ideas out there. Some of them work when the right questions are asked. As to prior art and the patent problem, it is better to have peer review than to depend on an overburdened small staff of government reviewers. Otherwise, just like unfiltered search results, it is easy to game even if expensive. The problem of Sterling's suggestion as I understood it was cumulative flat citation. It could work if prior art and domain was bundled into linksets that themselves become the reference by which claims are vetted and if that checking is highly automated (eg, TVM indices augmented by abstraction of logic chains that can be proofed). len From: Ian Graham [mailto:ian.graham@u...] This is a fine idea, but I don't see how it could work. The 'value' of a scientific (or any academic) paper is in the paper's new ideas -- and tin he references / footnotes giving it context. Peer review determines if a paper is 'good enough' to have potential value, or not. Insufficient references (or badly formed ideas) means you don't make it past the gate. The whole culture of academic writing is built around this model and this notion of value. But the value for code is entirely different - value is functionality, cost, time to market, etc ... So unless you change the measure of value, this idea won't fly. My 2 cents, anyway. Ian
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
