deletions | additions       diff --git a/abstract.tex b/abstract.tex  index 0198bb2..9f84126 100644  --- a/abstract.tex  +++ b/abstract.tex 
...
\begin{abstract} Drawing on well-known examples % \input{introduction.tex}  How might the idea  of serendipity ``serendipity'' be useful  in scientific discovery,  we develop a set of criteria computing? We will argue that \textbf{[say more here]}.  % \input{background.tex}  We already have methods for evaluating creativity  that can be applied adapted  tomodel and  evaluate serendipity.  % \input{related-work.tex}  Most prior work that deals with  serendipity incomputational settings. We use design patterns, and  the growth of a pattern language, as  a way to describe computing context only considers  the processes ``discovery'' part  of discovery and invention the definition, but we argue  that comprise serendipity also includes an ``invention'' aspect.  % \input{literature}  We survey literature describing  serendipitous encounters. discovery+invention in science and technology.  % \input{serendipity-in-computational-context}  We show how then develop  several earlier patterns of serendipity case studies (some historical and some imagined) showing  how serendipitous discovery+invention  can be applied work  in aWriters Workshop for  computational systems, and include related setting.  % \input{discussion}  From this, we extract  recommendations for practitioners. practitioners in computational creativity, and outline our own plan of work.  % \input{conclusion}  \\[.5cm] %  %% \keywords{serendipity,  %% design patterns,  diff --git a/layout.md b/layout.md  index d6a31a5..34521c2 100644  --- a/layout.md  +++ b/layout.md 
...
abstract.tex  introduction.tex  background.tex  SPECS-begins.tex  diff --git a/literature.tex b/literature.tex  index 338d844..f20bd44 100644  --- a/literature.tex  +++ b/literature.tex 
...
Here we will describe our key condition for serendipity, the presence  of a Focus Shift, together with four key components that implement  this (Prepared Mind, Serendipity Trigger, Bridge, Result), four  dimensions that are generally present to some degree in instances of  serendipitous discovery or invention (Chance, Curiosity, Sagacity,  Value) and four supporting environmental factors that, if not strictly  required, are at least conducive to serendipity (Dynamic world,  Multiple contexts, Multiple tasks, Multiple influences). We shall relate these descriptions to some of the most famous examples of serendipity.  With the characteristics in mind it is not hard to spot further examples.  % \input{basic-examples} Result).  \subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity} 
...
unexpected source. More classically, it is an \emph{unsought}  finding, such as the discovery of the Rosetta stone.  \subsection{Supportive dimensions and conducive factors}  \subsubsection*{Dimensions We also describe four dimensions that are generally present to some  degree in instances  of serendipity} serendipitous discovery or invention (Chance,  Curiosity, Sagacity, Value) and four supporting environmental factors  that, if not strictly required, are at least conducive to serendipity  (Dynamic world, Multiple contexts, Multiple tasks, Multiple  influences). We shall relate these descriptions to some of the most  famous examples of serendipity. With the characteristics in mind it  is not hard to spot further examples.  \subsubsection*{Dimensions of serendipity}  \paragraph{Chance.}  diff --git a/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex b/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex  index 516fc52..1abfd73 100644  --- a/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex  +++ b/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex 
...
% Why is it appropriate (formal spec e.g. considering externalities)  % what is the logic of the strategy by which it can be carried out.  %  \newpage \subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity}  \begin{itemize} 
...
techniques of reflection.  \end{itemize}  \subsection{Proposed experiment: A Writers Workshop for Systems} \label{sec:writers-workshop}  Richard Gabriel \cite{gabriel2002writer} describes the practise of  Writers Workshops that has been put to use for over a decade within  the Pattern Languages of Programming (PLoP) community. The basic  style of collaboration originated much earlier with groups of literary  authors who engage in peer-group critique. Some literary workshops  are open as to genre, and happy to accommodate beginners, like the  Minneapolis Writers  Workshop\footnote{\url{http://mnwriters.org/how-the-game-works/}};  others are focused on professionals working within a specific genre,  like the Milford Writers  Workshop\footnote{\url{http://www.milfordsf.co.uk/about.htm}}. The  practices that Gabriel describes are fairly typical. Authors come  with work ready to present, and read a short sample, which is then  discussed and constructively critiqued by attendees. Presenting  authors are not permitted to rebut these comments. The commentators  generally summarise the work and say what they have gotten out of it,  discuss what worked well in the piece, and talk about how it could be  improved. The author listens and may take notes; at the end, he or  she can then ask questions for clarification. Generally, non-authors  are either not permitted to attend, or are asked to stay silent  through the workshop, and perhaps sit separately from the  participating authors/reviewers. There are similarities between the  Writers Workshops and classical practices of group composition  \cite{jin1975art} and dialectic \cite{dialectique}, and the workshop  may be considered an artistic or creative space in its own right.  In PLoP workshops, authors present design patterns and pattern  languages, or papers about patterns, rather than more traditional  literary forms like poems, stories, or chapters from novels. Papers  must be workshopped at a PLoP or EuroPLoP conference in order to be  considered for the \emph{Transactions on Pattern Languages of  Programming} journal. A discussion of writers workshops  in the language of design patterns is presented by  Coplien and Woolf \cite{coplien1997pattern}. Their patterns include:  \begin{center}  {\small  \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{.2cm}}l@{\hspace{.2cm}}l}  \emph{Open Review} & \emph{Safe Setting} & \emph{Workshop Comprises Authors} \\  \emph{Authors are Experts} & \emph{Community of Trust} & \emph{Moderator Guides the Workshop} \\  \emph{Thank the Author} & \emph{Selective Changes} & \emph{Clearing the Palate} \\  \end{tabular}  }  \end{center}  We propose that a similar pattern-based approach should be deployed  within the Computational Creativity community to design a workshop in  which the participants are computer systems instead of human authors.  The annual International Conference on Computational Creativity  (ICCC), now entering its sixth year, could be a suitable venue.  Rather than the system's creator presenting the system in a  traditional slideshow and discussion, or a system ``Show and Tell,''  the systems would be brought to the workshop and would present their  own work to an audience of other systems, in a Writers Workshop  format. This might be accompanied by a short paper for the conference  proceedings written by the system's designer describing the system's  current capabilities and goals. Subsequent publications might include  traces of interactions in the Workshop, commentary from the system on  other systems, and offline reflections on what the system might change  about its own work based on the feedback it receives. As in the PLoP  community, it could become standard to incorporate this sort of workshop  into the process of peer reviewing journal articles for the new \emph{Journal of  Computational Creativity}\footnote{\url{http://www.journalofcomputationalcreativity.cc}}.  \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}  \vspace{.2cm}  \caption{Reinterpreting patterns of serendipity for use in a computational workshop\label{tab:reinterpret}}  \end{table}  \begin{figure}[t]  \begin{center}  \resizebox{.93\textwidth}{!}{  \StickyNote[2.5cm]{myyellow}{{\LARGE {Interesting idea}} \\[4ex] {Surprise birthday party}}[3.8cm] \StickyNote[2.5cm]{mygreen}{{\Large I heard you say:} \\[4ex] {``surprise''} }[3.8cm]  \StickyNote[2.5cm]{pink}{{\Large Feedback:} \\[4ex] {I don't like surprises}}[3.8cm]  }  \resizebox{.61\textwidth}{!}{  \StickyNote[2.5cm]{myorange}{{\LARGE {Question}} \\[4ex] {Not even a little bit?\ldots}}[3.8cm]  \quad \raisebox{-.2cm}{\StickyNote[2.5cm]{myblue}{{\LARGE Note to self:} \\[4ex] {(Try smaller surprises \\ next time.)}}[3.8cm]}  }  \end{center}  \caption{A paper prototype for applying the \emph{Successful Error} pattern\label{fig:paper-prototype}}  \end{figure}  In order to facilitate this sort of interaction, it would be necessary  for systems to implement a basic protocol related to  %%  \[  \text{  {\tt presentation}, {\tt listening}, {\tt  feedback}, {\tt questions}, and {\tt  reflections}.}  \]  %%  This protocol could be thought of as a light-weight template for  creating design patterns that guide system-level participation in the  context specified by Coplien and Woolf's pattern language for writers  workshops. Table \ref{tab:reinterpret} uses this framework to recast  the four ``perfectly'' serendipitous patterns from van Andel --  \emph{Successful error}, \emph{Side effect}, \emph{Wrong hypothesis},  and \emph{Outsider} -- in a form that may make them useful to  developers preparing to enter their systems into the Workshop. % Further guidelines for structuring and participating in traditional  writers workshops are presented by Linda Elkin in  \cite[pp. 201-203]{gabriel2002writer}. It is not at all clear that  the same ground rules should apply to computer systems. For example,  one of Elkin's rules is that ``Quips, jokes, or sarcastic comments,  even if kindly meant, are inappropriate.'' Rather than forbidding  humour, it may be better for individual comments to be rated as  helpful or non-helpful. Again, since serendipitous discovery is an  overarching goal, in the first instance, usefulness and interest might  be judged in terms of the criteria described in Section  \ref{sec:evaluation-criteria}.  We would need a neutral environment that is not hard to develop for:  the {\sf FloWr} system described in Section \ref{sec:foundations}  offers one such possibility. With this system, the basic operating  logic of the Workshop could be spelled out as a flowchart, and  contributing systems could use flowcharts as the basic medium for  sharing their presentations, feedback, and questions. Developing  around a process language of this sort partially obviates the need for  participating systems to have strong natural language processing  capabilities.   %  Post-it\texttrademark\ notes, which have provided us with a useful  example of serendipitous discovery, also provide indicative strategies  from the world of paper prototyping (Figure \ref{fig:paper-prototype}).  Gordon Pask's conversation theory, reviewed in  \cite{conversation-theory-review,boyd2004conversation}, goes  considerably beyond what we have presented here as a simple process  language, although there are structural parallels. In a basic  Pask-style learning conversation: (0) Conversational participants are  carrying out some actions and observations; (1) naming and recording  what action is being done; (2) asking and explaining why it works the  way it does; (3) carrying out higher-order methodological discussion;  and (4) trying to figure out why unexpected results occured \cite[p. 190]{boyd2004conversation}.  Naturally, variations to the underlying system, protocol, and the  schedule of events should be considered depending on the needs and  interests of participants, and several variants can be tried. On a  pragmatic basis, if the Workshop proved quite useful to participants,  it could be revised to run monthly, weekly, or  continuously.\footnote{For a comparison case in computer Go, see  \url{http://cgos.computergo.org/}.} \input{writers-workshop-background-long}  \subsection{On evaluating a Writers Workshop for Systems}