deletions | additions       diff --git a/README.md b/README.md  index cf5b4f1..5ee7fa7 100644  --- a/README.md  +++ b/README.md 
...
show how several earlier patterns of serendipity can be applied in a  Writers Workshop for computational systems, and include related  recommendations for practitioners.  # Plan of Action  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 1 (Joe, Alison): Significantly clarify the argument and summarise it in |  | the introduction. |  | |  | - We are offering one possible computational definition of serendipity |  | - Serendipity is not the same as luck.  It’s a matter of learning |  | something, in a way that’s unanticipated.  Looking for something and |  | finding something else. |  | - Explain the aspects of the model better, e.g. why is it essential |  | that the trigger is not under the control of the system. |  | - Clearly summarise the offering of the paper. |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 2 (Joe): Move our formal definition of serendipity (e.g. the diagram) up |  | to meet the literature review, as a new section ‘Formal definition of |  | Serendipity’. (It’s a key contribution of the paper.) |  | |  | - We will clearly connect the heuristic criteria from Alison with the |  | figure. |  | - In addition a quick graphical summary of the 13 criteria |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 3 (Joe): Drop sections 3 and 4, and move key concepts to “future work” |  | |  | - Section 3 (FloWr) -\> heavily condense and put into future work |  | (some overview of Joe’s concrete implementation plans).  Explain |  | with minimal references. |  | - Section 4 (Design patterns) - heavily condensed - “Just So Stories” |  | paragraph in Section 5.3 as a potential application.  Explain some |  | history about design patterns and say that, for serendipity, the |  | question is where do new “design” ideas come from.  (I.e. discovery |  | of a new approach.)  But make this future work. |  | - “We are highlighting how design patterns and the other ideas in this |  | paper could be used to build a context where serendipity will take |  | place.” |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 4 (Anna): Remove Section 5.3 (save it for another paper about Writers |  | Workshops).  It’s relevant for “embedded creativity” but “Writers |  | Workshops” themselves can be a footnote.  The actual idea here is more |  | general. |  | |  | - Anna can add more about evaluation in the creative process |  | - The idea of the WW (or just social revision) is an example of a |  | place where serendipity can occur. |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 5 (Anna): Leading into our thought experiment: “An emerging theme in |  | computing is exploitation of social creativity and feedback.  Our |  | computational model contributes to theorising this work.” |  | |  | - Include another example with computational serendipity?  Maybe the |  | example from Kaz’s thesis |  | - It would not be hard to find an example of a music system noticing |  | that a note was wrong and playing.  Make sure we include at least |  | one example that is not “technically improbable” -- better to |  | include several that have been realised (e.g. Copycat) |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 6 (Christian): Copycat or any other historical examples of serendipity |  | in computing, or explanation of why there are none (argue for or |  | against, in the background section, as a new §§, and perhaps again later |  | in the document as a further analysis to accompany our thought |  | experiment). |  | |  | - Concrete lower bound examples and counterexamples, e.g. would it be |  | possible for “merely generative” systems to exhibit serendipity? -- |  | case of genetic algorithms |  | - What is the difference between serendipity and good luck? (E.g. a |  | random act that leads to an outcome that is evaluated positively.) |  | - What are the strict requirements and what are only the supportive |  | factors that make serendipity "likely"? Or is it a matter of degree? |  | - Is it the case that serendipitous systems would be more 'sagacious' |  | in recognizing interesting triggers? - explain, especially in |  | connection with computational search. |  | - What about 'regular' systems that work by applying inference |  | procedures on symbolic representations to yield new representations? |  | - e.g. theorem provers |  | - Evaluate existing approaches to “computational learning” - are they |  | serendipitous? |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 7 (Simon, Alison): Clarify the extent to which serendipity is something |  | that “actually exists” or is something that is only perceived to exist. |  | |  | - It does not seem to be an “essentially contested concept”, just a |  | potentially confusing one.  One contribution of the paper is to |  | clarify this. |  | - Clarify the relationship to other key concepts in computational |  | creativity / creative computing |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 8 (Alison): Include a section early on that defines any other keywords |  | that we refer to later, like the word “dynamic”. |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 9 (Alison): Improve exposition of the analysis of Pek van Andel’s |  | patterns. |  | |  | - (1) What do we hope to achieve with this analysis, and our diagram? |  | - (2) Have we done the analysis in some verifiable way, i.e. “where |  | does the analysis come from (i.e. which aspect occurs in which |  | pattern)? Is there clear consensus on this?” |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 10 (Joe, all): Make referencing less intensive for the reader. |  | |  | - Use APA style referencing and cut down on number of references. |  | - Clearly explain in narrative form what sort of literature we will |  | draw on. |  | - Perhaps the historical examples of serendipity should be confined to |  | a separate “recommended reading” section and not referenced directly |  | in the text. |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 11 (Christian, Anna): Shorten and improve the literature review. |  | |  | - Preserve key features of the general survey, but include a more |  | thorough review of recent related work in computing, including work |  | in the Cognitive Computation journal. |  | - There has been prior work on surprise (Mary Lou Maher + Kazjon |  | Grace - |  | [https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW14/paper/view/8779](http |  | s://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaai.org%2Focs%2Findex.php%2F |  | WS%2FAAAIW14%2Fpaper%2Fview%2F8779&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGFIWctyzoi4ZSfD |  | oIrAznrL4Be0g) and |  | also their paper at ICCC 2013 or 2014) and discovery (Kaz’s AAAI |  | paper) |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+  | 12 (Joe): Confine philosophy references (e.g. Bergson, Deleuze) to the |  | background section so that it doesn’t confuse anyone about what we’re |  | actually offering in the paper. |  | |  | - Don’t refer to them in the conclusion, but do summarise the |  | contribution of this paper again in the conclusion (hint: it should |  | be what we say in the title). |  | - Re-summarise again in the abstract. |  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+