We made our first glossary when participants in the early "happening" complained that we used lots of technical jargon. I was surprised that we had so many terms we used carefully. Now I am thinking that dictionary descriptions may be insufficient.
We consider the cross-cutting concerns that have guided this collaborative information space for over a decade.
I've done several aspect-oriented decompositions of complex subjects. I am finding that these explain themselves if one answers three questions: 1. what is it, 2. what are the parts, and, 3. can I understand why parts fit together.
I see this as a natural exploration where one seeks to recognize the reduction and then find insight in the whole.
Here is how our recent work helps:
**What is it?** Every thing worth exploring deserves its own wiki page that answers what it is in the synopsis and then maybe a few more paragraphs of explanation. This page will hold the assets that are the aspects that make the whole. But one must know where they are going before they start finding their way.
**What are the parts?** These are the aspects. They might be tiny and say one thing, one important relation. Or they might be an interesting loop that must be understood before going much further. For us, remember, better to have unnecessary overlaps rather than trying to be the perfect decomposition.
**Can we understand the parts fitting together?** Here we depend on the readers own curiosity. Without adding color one can see one graph touch another. At this point one is studying the way we choose to name the parts. Can one remember the names we give the parts? Can we say two names together and feel that we are describing the merged diagrams?
After we answer these three questions we enter the domain of discovery. Here we can expect to learn a thing or two ourselves and to invoke provocative discussion with everyone exploring the interactions together.