Subject: forward composition vs. reverse accounting
From: Rich Persaud <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:24:31 -0800

 Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:24:31 -0800
Tom's lack of a marketing dept. not withstanding, there is supreme irony 
in the author of a "configuration management" system being forced onto 
the street by virtue of negative values in an "asset management" system.

Economics, perhaps even the brain itself, centralizes algorithms for 
decentralization of resources into contract-worthy configurations that
have been proven to reduce the risk of resource loss.

When the distinguishable half-life of an asset is sufficiently small, 
the addition operator becomes invalid for operands larger than 1.  
A valid operator, composition, is N-ary & non-commutative.

For binary composition of humans, "Who's Your [Dadd/Momm]y"
continues to be an accurate predictor of future asset additivity. 
Yet, each day increases N beyond two, transforming birth from 
a onetime event to a logged, annotated, hypertextual process.

Accountants use reverse audits, to learn why past assets did not 
determine present assets.  Composers and configurators use
forward audits, to learn how present configurations inspire 
future configurations of yet-to-be-deemed assets.

"Design patterns" yielded by the first large-scale "patent" analysis 
earned one Russian the charge of "inventing with the purpose to 
do harm to the country" and a sentence of 25 yrs in a prison camp 
above the Arctic Circle, circa 1948.

A 10-min, 10-slide presentation by Sun at LinuxWorld NYC 03 
touches a few of these notes (disclaimer1: I consulted to the team 
that developed the presentation; disclaimer2:  opinions in this email
are mine and not those of past or present clients).  It's a small 
movement by a large company towards a learning direction:

Geographical co-occurrence of diversity and innovation:

Time to rebrand "configuration" as "innovation topology".

[yes, that includes Enron's genealogical opportunism.]