,

Please forward to all interested participants of the
GPG project.

A few weeks have passed by since our last chat. Did
you get a chance to assemble that list of cards we
want to include in the online version? Can you take
them from your "SILENT CONVERSATION" copies?

I have had one week of vacation in Portugal and I used
some of the time to play and discuss the GPG with a
good friend of mine--Erik, a great mathematician.

Here are some of our conclusions:

The Glass Plate Game is a medium that...
- could overcome the barriers between languages and
  cultures to exchange subtle information hard to
  capture in words
- bridge the gap between scientists working on visual
  and symbolic information representation and the ones
  that are in need of new powerful tools to discuss
  topics of scientific and personal cognitive nature
- will prove useful for directed problem solving
  between parties of different backgrounds.

But to collectively develop the game we need to find
an agreement of all people involved stating what we
want the game to be in the future. In order to offer
our players a flexible and interesting game (better
"tool") we should continue the development of the game
which in our opinion has gone on hold quite a while
ago. It is very necessary to actually include some of
the proposals for enhancements that have been made
throughout the last years. In order to not develop the
game into several directions at the same time we
should re-propose those changes and have people vote
for their incorporation after an extended period of
explaining and discussing. We might also decide to
leave the physical card game as it is and develop an
enhanced online version.

I will now try to restate some of the enhancements
that I can remember.

1) Some of the graphical representations should be
   redesigned since they don't allow for an intuitive
   understanding of the idea behind the card.

2) We need more cards in the base set so that basic
   things like "humans", "nature", "nothing",
   "universe", etc. are available. The idea to
   categorize them into sets for different areas can 
   be maintained.

   The smaller the chunks of information we represent
   on one card the more we drift towards "simply
   another language". In fact, GPG may become very
   similar to Extended Entity Relationship Diagrams,
   relational database diagrams and similar modeling
   tools.
   Yet there is a possibility at hand for the game to
   turn into something like an "hyper object based
   design tool" yielding complex knowledge meshes. I
   have discussed this possibility with people working
   on stuff like that.

   The bigger the chunks of information on one card
   become the harder it is to express things that do
   not fall into any of the predefined categories. Is
   it a defined purpose of the game to offer just a 
   few options to express something and to stimulate
   the creativity of its players this way? 
   I don't see this as a very good idea since I have
   been distracted by exactly this limitations many
   times, but we need to reach common clarity about
   this point.

3) We need a possibility to draw several cards
   together into one step of thought, e.g. a player
   wants to say "Art covers ideas of rational and
   irrational nature." He could connect the cards
   "Art", "Idea", "Rationality", and "Irrationality".

4) The different types of connections should be
   visible after they have been established. In the
   sentence above we have "cover" in the sense of
   "include" meaning A is superset of B. Furthermore 
   we have "is" to describe the two types od ideas. 
   The relation "is" has cordinality of 1:m similar to
   those used in RDBs.

Although unfinished I want to stop here for today. I
think it becomes clear what to me and other people
that I have talked to about GPG is the main issue that
needs to be decided upon: What is the purpose of GPG? 
Please don't leave this decision open-ended. I think
it will be good to decide for one way or
another--there is nothing to loose, only to learn.

I'm looking forard to your input.

Good health,
Roger

=====
You can only find truth with logic if you already found thruth without it.
[G.K. Chesterton]