deletions | additions       diff --git a/SPECS-begins.tex b/SPECS-begins.tex  index 4e3f372..1a7815a 100644  --- a/SPECS-begins.tex  +++ b/SPECS-begins.tex 
...
\begin{quote} {\em Identify a definition of serendipity that your  system should satisfy to be considered serendipitous.}\end{quote}  Summarising the criteria discussed earlier, we propose the following  definition, expressed in two phases: discovery and invention. The  definition centres on the four components of serendipity, outlined  above, which can subsequently be made sense of and evaluated with  reference to the four dimensions of serendipity. These, in turn, are  understood to be embedded in an environment exhibiting many, but not  necessarily all, of the environmental factors listed above.  \begin{quote}  \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=6em,rightmargin=2em]  \item[\emph{(\textbf{1 - Discovery})}] \emph{Within a system with a prepared mind, a previously uninteresting serendipity trigger arises due to circumstances that the system does not control, and This  isclassified  as interesting by the system; and,}  \item[\emph{(\textbf{2 - Invention})}] \emph{The system, by subsequently processing this trigger and background information together with relevant reasoning, networking, or experimental techniques, obtains a novel result that is evaluated favourably by the system or by external sources.}  \end{enumerate}  \end{quote} above.  %% This situation can be pictured schematically as follows:  diff --git a/cc-intro.tex b/cc-intro.tex  index 9b62d57..d2bf781 100644  --- a/cc-intro.tex  +++ b/cc-intro.tex 
...
% \input{writers-workshop-background-long}  \subsection{Some completely realistic \subsection{Prior partial  examples} \textbf{[Here we should put examples of real historical systems that  were designed with serendipity in mind, or that can be interpreted  that way. We could also include some completely \emph{formal}  system (like ``Markov Chain Monte Carlo'') and show how it  \emph{might} operate in a serendipitous fashion, as well as what  limitations it runs into in the process.]} \textbf{[Jazz, recommender systems, HR.]}  diff --git a/future-work.tex b/future-work.tex  index b49e86e..254cd40 100644  --- a/future-work.tex  +++ b/future-work.tex 
...
\subsection{Future Work} \label{sec:futurework} \label{sec:hatching}  Merton \citeyear{merton1948bearing} \cite[pp. 195--196]{merton} refers to a generalised ``serendipity pattern''  and its constituent parts:  \begin{quote}  \emph{The serendipity pattern refers to the fairly common experience of observing an \emph{unanticipated}, \emph{anomalous} \emph{and strategic} datum which becomes the occasion for developing a new theory or for extending an existing theory.}~\cite[p. 506]{merton1948bearing} (original emphasis)  %% The datum [that exerts a pressure for initiating theory] is, first of all, unanticipated. A research directed toward the test of one hypothesis yields a fortuitous by-product, an unexpected observation which bears upon theories not in question when the research was begun.  %% Secondly, the observation is anomalous, surprising, either because it seems inconsistent with prevailing theory or with other established facts. In either case, the seeming inconsistency provokes curiosity; it stimulates the investigator to "make sense of the datum," to fit it into a broader frame of knowledge....  %% And thirdly, in noting that the unexpected fact must be "strategic," i. e., that it must permit of implications which bear upon generalized theory, we are, of course, referring rather to what the observer brings to the datum than to the datum itself. For it obviously requires a theoretically sensitized observer to detect the universal in the particular.   \end{quote}  These features match our earlier description quite well: $T$ is the  unexpected observation; $T^\star$ singles out the interesting or  anomalous features; and the result $R$ may include updates to $p$ or  $p^{\prime}$ that inform further phases of research.  %  Van Andel's \citeyear{van1994anatomy} ``patterns of serendipity'' are  often instances of this broader pattern.  %% \begin{quote}  %% ``Given research set up for a certain purpose, some unexpected, puzzling data, and a scientist capable of being puzzled -- given all of these, an accidental discovery will occur, because the relationship between fact and theory in science is such that it must occur.''  %% \end{quote}  In future work, we would like to explore the usefulness of the  somewhat more formal theory of \emph{design patterns}  \cite{alexander1999origins} for designing with serendipity in mind.  Alexandrian design patterns are by no means limited to computing: the  approach has its origins in architecture and urban planning  \cite{alexander1979timeless,alexander1977pattern}.  Design patterns prescribe and describe: they provide models \emph{for}  as well as models \emph{of}  \cite[p. 93]{geertz1973interpretation}. Thus, when Alexander  describes the pattern \emph{A place to wait}, he is also telling  readers that it may be a good idea to consider building a place to  wait when designing a living environment.  In connection with our understanding of serendipity as closely  associated with deviations from familiar patterns (in the everyday  sense of the word), it is interesting to ask how it can play a role in  the creation of new design patterns and pattern languages. Noticing  and describing a new pattern is almost the antithesis of ``pattern  recognition'' in the usual computing sense.  As a beginning, we examined the 14 ``patterns of serendipity''  selected and described by van Andel \citeyear{van1994anatomy}, using the criteria  described in our Section \ref{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}.  We found all of these patterns do indeed include a focus shift, a  prepared mind, a serendipity trigger, a bridge, and a result, although  two of the patterns raised questions:  \begin{itemize}  \item In the case of \emph{Testing popular belief}, van Andel focuses  on an account of a medical practise that originated in a folk claim,  namely cowpox-derived immunity to smallpox. It is challenging in  this case to identify one specific serendipity trigger -- although a  curious chain of events connected Edward Jenner with the smallpox  vaccine. It may be most appropriate to think of Jenner himself as  the serendipity trigger at the societal level: his ``relentless  promotion and devoted research of vaccination \ldots changed the way  medicine was practised'' \cite{riedel2005edward}.  %% This effect, for milkmaids, might  %% indeed be called serendipitous. Indeed, the medical use of cowpox has  %% been described as ``widely know'' \cite{riedel2005edward} prior to its  %% popularisation by Edward Jenner. Nevertheless, Jenner's  \item \emph{Inversion} is closer to what is called an  \emph{antipattern} in the design pattern literature  \cite{brown1998antipatterns}. Van Andel describes the story of a  researcher observing an effect due to the anticoagulant heparine  which was precisely the opposite of the one sought -- factors that  \emph{cause} blood clotting -- and then failing to acknowledge that  this observation was important for over 40 years. The result was  eventually seen to be of value, however, again, this may be a  pattern of \emph{antiserendipity}.  \end{itemize}  Among the 14 patterns, four are cases of ``perfect'' serendipity from  the point of view of our extended set of criteria (i.e.~they included  all of the 13 components, dimensions, and environmental factors) --  these patterns were \emph{Successful error}, \emph{Side effect},  \emph{Wrong hypothesis}, and \emph{Outsider}.  %  We wondered whether these were patterns might be used to support  serendipity in other settings -- such as the Writers Workshop. Table  \ref{tab:reinterpret} gives an initial sketch, and initial experiments  that will bring this material to computational life are underway.  \begin{table}[p]  \begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}  {\bf\emph{Successful error}} & \\  \emph{Van Andel's example}: & Post-it\texttrademark\ notes \\[.2cm]  {\tt presentation}& Systems should be prepared to share interesting ideas even if they don't know directly how they will be useful. \\  {\tt listening} & Systems should listen with interest, too. \\  {\tt feedback} & Even interesting ideas may not be ``marketable.''\\  {\tt questions} & How is your suggestion useful? \\  {\tt reflections} & New combinations of ideas take a long time to realise, and many different ideas may need to be combined in order to come up with something useful.\\  \end{tabular}  \bigskip  \begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}  {\bf\emph{Side effect}} & \\  \emph{Van Andel's example}: & Nicotinamide used to treat side-effects of radiation therapy proves efficacious against tuberculosis. \\[.2cm]  {\tt presentation}& Systems should use their presentation as an experiment. \\  {\tt listening} & Listeners should allow themselves to be affected by what they are hearing. \\  {\tt feedback} & Feedback should convey the nature of the effect.\\  {\tt questions} & The presenter may need to ask follow-up questions to gain insight. \\  {\tt reflections} & Form a new hypothesis before seeking a new audience. \\  \end{tabular}  \bigskip  \begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}  {\bf\emph{Wrong hypothesis}} & \\  \emph{Van Andel's example}: & Lithium, used in a control study, had an unexpected calming effect. \\[.2cm]  {\tt presentation}& How is this presentation interpretable as a (``natural'') control study? \\  {\tt listening} & Listeners are ``guinea pigs''.\\  {\tt feedback} & Discuss side-effects that do not necessarily correspond to the author's perceived intent. \\  {\tt questions} & Zero in on the most interesting part of the conversation.\\  {\tt reflections} & Revise hypotheses to correspond to the most surprising feedback. \\  \end{tabular}  \bigskip  \begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}  {\bf\emph{Outsider}} & \\  \emph{Van Andel's example}: & A mother suggests a new hypothesis to a doctor. \\[.2cm]  {\tt presentation}& The presenter is here to learn from the audience. \\  {\tt listening} & The audience is here to give help, but also to get help.\\  {\tt feedback} & Feedback will inevitably draw on previous experiences and ideas.\\  {\tt questions} & What is the basis for that remark?\\  {\tt reflections} & How can I implement the suggestions?\\  \end{tabular}  \caption{Reinterpreting patterns of serendipity for use in a computational poetry workshop\label{tab:reinterpret}}  \end{table}  Within the context of the ongoing COINVENT project \cite{coinvent14},  we are interested in usingdesign patterns together with  computational blending theory to realise certain aspects of this model in a stand-alone architecture. %  It will be useful to consider how we can take both the \emph{discovery  step}, which combines a serendipity trigger $T$, and prior 
...
about how to compute a common base between $T$ and $p$. Although $T$  was previously uninteresting, it will have attributes or  attribute-types that match the patterns recognised by $p$ (e.g. van  Andel's \citeyear{van1994anatomy}  ``\emph{One surprising observation}''). %  In the invention step, reasoning, experimentation, social interaction strategies rely on $p^{\prime}$, which might draw on patterns like van  Andel's  \emph{Successful error}, error}  in order to extract a fruitful result from $T^{\star}$. Here, an important guidepost for implementation is that many outcomes will result in new patterns of behaviour that the system can draw on in subsequent interactions. What is particularly needed is an approach to encoding patterns of  serendipity in a computationally accessible manner. Here we are drawn  to the approach taken by the design pattern community, although we  recognize that we would be using design patterns in a very different  way from the standard:   \begin{itemize}  \item[(1)] We want to encode our ``design patterns'' directly in  runnable programs, not just give them to programmers as heuristic  guidance.  \item[(2)] We want the automated programming system to generate new  patterns, not just apply or adapt old ones.  \end{itemize}  diff --git a/layout.md b/layout.md  index 416c514..c71678a 100644  --- a/layout.md  +++ b/layout.md 
...
related-work.tex  model.tex  figures/schematic1/schematic1.png  definition.tex  connections.tex  SPECS-begins.tex  SPECS-continues.tex  diff --git a/model.tex b/model.tex  index 6675847..a33b258 100644  --- a/model.tex  +++ b/model.tex 
...
\section{Our computational model of serendipity} \label{sec:background}  \input{definition.tex} Summarising the criteria discussed earlier, we propose the following  definition, expressed in two phases: discovery and invention. The  definition centres on the four components of serendipity, outlined  above, which can subsequently be made sense of and evaluated with  reference to the four dimensions of serendipity. These, in turn, are  understood to be embedded in an environment exhibiting many, but not  necessarily all, of the environmental factors listed above.  \begin{quote}  \begin{enumerate}[itemsep=2pt,labelwidth=9em,leftmargin=6em,rightmargin=2em]  \item[\emph{(\textbf{1 - Discovery})}] \emph{Within a system with a prepared mind, a previously uninteresting serendipity trigger arises due to circumstances that the system does not control, and is classified as interesting by the system; and,}  \item[\emph{(\textbf{2 - Invention})}] \emph{The system, by subsequently processing this trigger and background information together with relevant reasoning, networking, or experimental techniques, obtains a novel result that is evaluated favourably by the system or by external sources.}  \end{enumerate}  \end{quote}  % \input{schematic-tikz}  {\centering  \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{schematic}  \par}  diff --git a/recommendations.tex b/recommendations.tex  index a7e0d80..616c273 100644  --- a/recommendations.tex  +++ b/recommendations.tex 
...
of one such social model, but more fundamentally, it is an example of  \emph{learning from feedback}. The Workshop model ``personifies'' the  wider world as one or several critics. It is clearly also possible  for a lone creative agent to manage take its own  critical modules approach  in relationship to the world at large, using an experimental approach to generate  feedback, and then looking for models to fit this feedback.  diff --git a/serendipity.tex b/serendipity.tex  index a7fd7a8..0170569 100644  --- a/serendipity.tex  +++ b/serendipity.tex 
...
%% Our core definition  \input{model.tex}  \input{definition.tex}  \input{connections.tex}  \input{SPECS-begins.tex}  \input{SPECS-continues.tex}