article Free Access Share on Developments on the intellectual property front Authors: Pamela Samuelson Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawView Profile , Michel Denber Xerox Corporation, Rochester, New York Xerox Corporation, Rochester, New YorkView Profile , Robert J. Glushko Hypertext Engineering, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Hypertext Engineering, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaView Profile Authors Info & Claims Communications of the ACMVolume 35Issue 6June 1992 pp 33–39https://doi.org/10.1145/129888.129899Published:01 June 1992Publication History 4citation393DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations4Total Downloads393Last 12 Months11Last 6 weeks1 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF
This chapter contains sections titled: 10.1 Introduction, 10.2 The Organizing System Lifecycle, 10.3 Defining and Scoping the Organizing System Domain, 10.4 Identifying Requirements for an Organizing System, 10.5 Designing and Implementing an Organizing System, 10.6 Operating and Maintaining an Organizing System, 10.7 Applying the Roadmap: Organizing Systems Case Studies, 10.8 Key Points in Chapter Ten, Notes
Many hypermedia projects exist as small-scale prototypes or so-called proof of concept demonstrations. But full-scale projects that are deployed and maintained In production are scarce, because problems can arise at various points In the project life cycle that cause the project to fail. Problems that arise when the project is started include the lack of realistic expectations and the difficulty of assembling a multidisciplinary project team. Problems that emerge during the design and development phases lnclude few published case studies or design guidelines, poor quality or availability of source information, Inappropriate and underpowered software technology, and uncertainty about Intellectual property Issues. Problems at the deployment and maintenance phases lnclude installed base constraints and Inadequate methods for maintaining the hypermedia system. Not all of these problems are specific to hypermedia projects, but they conspire with the novelty and immaturity of hypermedia to make hypermedia applications hard to design, develop, and deploy successfully.
At the August 2000 meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Dr. James L. McClelland and Dr. Robert J. Glushko presented the initial plan to honor the intellectual contributions of David E. Rumelhart to cognitive science by awarding an annual prize of $100,000 funded by the Robert J. Glushko and Pamela Samuelson Foundation. McClelland was a close collaborator of Rumelhart, and together they had written numerous articles and books on parallel distributed processing. Glushko, who had been Rumelhart’s PhD student in the late 1970s and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur in the 1990s, is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Califonria, Berkeley. Rumelhart had just retired from Stanford University in 1998, suffering from Pick’s disease, a degenerative neurological illness. The David E. Rumelhart prize was conceived to honor outstanding research in formal approaches to human cognition. Rumelhart’s own seminal contributions to cognitive science included both connectionist and symbolic models, employing both computational and mathematical tools. These contributions progressed from his early work on analogies and story grammars to the development of back-propagation and the use of parallel, distributed processing to model various cognitive abilities. Critically, Rumelhart believed that future progress in cognitive science would depend upon researchers being able to develop rigorous, formal theories of mental structures and processes. Initial selection criteria and processes were developed with the help of an advisory committee that consisted of James McClelland (chair), William Estes, Barbara Partee, and Herbert Simon (recipient of the Nobel prize, which we choose to think of as the Rumelhart Prize for Economics), and McClelland chaired the selection committee from 2001 to 2007. The first recipient was Geoffrey Hinton in 2001. In chronological order, the subsequent recipients were: Richard Shiffrin (2002), Aravind Joshi (2003), John Anderson (2004), Paul Smolensky (2005), Roger Shepard (2006), Jeff Elman (2007), Shimon Ullman (2008), Susan Carey (2009), and James McClelland (2010). Fitting with Rumelhart’s own interdisciplinary and multipronged attack on the problems of cognitive science, these cognitive scientists have come from a number of fields (computer science, linguistics, and psychology), tackled a number of core issues (learning, development, vision, language, induction, generalization, and memory to name a few), and used a wide variety of theory-building tools (process models, optimality analyses, statistical modeling, neural networks, and knowledge representation). Although the prize was conceived to honor theoretical approaches to cognition, most of the prize recipients have also engaged in empirical work, and closely connect their theories to data collected from human behavior and other natural phenomena. Like Rumelhart, the prize winners have been centrally concerned with developing validated and testable theories. The Cognitive Science Society has been associated with the prize since its inception. The prize winner has been announced at the annual Cognitive Science Society meeting, and there has always been a plenary Rumelhart Prize talk by the recipient at the meeting. However, over the years, the reach of the prize has increased in important ways. First, starting in 2002, a Rumelhart Prize symposium was instituted at the Cognitive Science Conference on a topic related to the Rumelhart Prize recipient’s research. Second, starting with the second Rumelhart Prize recipient, there have been special issues of Cognitive Science on topics related to the prize winner’s research. Thus far, special issues have been published or are planned honoring Shiffrin, Joshi, Anderson, Smolensky, Shepard, Elman, Carey, and McClelland. Third, at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, there was a symposium consisting of previous winners of the Rumelhart Prize. These panelists were charged with laying out the most important unanswered and unasked questions in cognitive science. In so doing, the previous prize winners formulated remaining challenges that await the future prize winners. The prize has changed in other ways as well. Most significantly, in 2005, the selection criterion of “formal approaches to human cognition” was modified to “contemporary contribution to the theoretical foundations of human cognition.” Although relaxing the constraint on mathematical, computational, or linguistic formalizations, the prize committee continues to place a premium on foundational theoretical developments, and for efforts toward developing the kinds of systematic and rigorous accounts that Rumelhart himself esteemed. The Rumelhart Prize honors Rumelhart, the prize recipients, and the broader community of cognitive scientists striving to develop a scientific understanding of minds, in all of the forms that they may take. Among the unanswered questions of science are fundamental inquiries concerning the nature of matter, life, and minds. The last of these inquires falls squarely in the provenance of cognitive science and is arguably the pursuit best poised for profound progress in the next decade. As the Rumelhart Prize enters its second decade, our quest will persist for foundational theories for how minds are possible and how they work. We also expect novelty in these theories. This fusion of continuity and change is well captured by the symbol called “Alinea,” the appearance of which (¶) has been made mundane by its insertion at the end of each paragraph in some word processors. Belying this pedestrian usage, the symbol not only stands for the end of a paragraph, but the beginning of a new idea. That is something that Rumelhart always admired.
Traditional outputs of scholarly communication, such as monographs and journal articles are being supplemented by new forms of scholarship, particularly in fields such as digital humanities. Canadian university libraries have long played a role supporting the creation, distribution, and preservation of scholarly objects. That support must be extended to include new formats and modes of scholarly work, such as digital portfolios, non-linear narratives, social media, scholarly video journals, etc. As the means of production and forms of scholarly output diversify, libraries will need to understand the impact of these digital shifts and identify areas where library efforts can have the most influence. This article examines developing areas of non-traditional scholarly communication and discusses implications for members of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL).
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)