Psychologically, we’re in distress. Socially, we’re isolated.

“You have to be very honest with yourself about what you’re solving for. If you get that wrong, you might make it hard for other people to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing,” said Fischbach. “So, ask yourself: What is your motivation? What are you aiming for? It’s easier for you to understand what you’re trying to do if you can articulate your goal.”

use the commons as a new regulatory mechanism. That would mean not local commons but trans-local commons. What I imagine, I call this the magisteria of the commons, you have a coalition of, let's say, permaculture, a particular way of doing respectful agriculture. Locally, they're weak. It's just a bunch of people. Globally, what if there are 12,000 of them? What if they have a common social power, like common property that can help the nodes individually? I think that would create the premises and the seeds for a new type of institution that can operate at the trans-local level. That's what I call cosmolocalism

Glossary of some important musical terms

SOUND SUPPORT PHRASINGThe last performance directive to cover is quite important, and one that is often overlooked~ that of sound support phrasing ~ the direction as when to start and when to stop produc-ing a sound irrelative to pitch change.Whether the sound is produced by blowing, plucking, scrapping or hitting, there is a pointwhen the performer needs to take a breath, raise the arm, or move the bow toa starting posi-tion; all affect the phrase qualicy ofa melody. There are two considerations the composermust make; (1) how long the sound production can last depending on the tempo of theperformance and the abilities of the performer, and (2) how will the pause ro take a breathor raise a bow affect the phrasing of the melody. Careful preplanning is required to assure asuccessful interpretation of your melody.

ARTICULATIONS AND EFFECTSThis subject is beyond the scope of this book ~ one really should refer to an orchestrationor arranging text for this, bur to provide a quick access and a review, the following descrip-tions of articulations are included.ARTICULATIONSIchasbeenstatedthatforajazzperformance,onlytwoarticulationsareneeded:staccatoandtenuto-thereisnoneedtobesospartan.To review:Staccato and tenuto refer to note length ~ how long the pitch is held - with no change in vol-ume or emphasis.

The rhythmic structure of the melody is interesting hypermetrically: in mm. 1–4, thehypermetric downbeat occurs in mm. 1 and 3 and emphasizes ^5 as the melodic anchor.The continuation of the phrase features a less regular hypermetric organization withmetrical downbeats occurring in mm. 5, 6, and 7. This hypermetric organization cor-roborates yet another characteristic of contrafacts, namely that they have a fairly irregularand purposefully unpredictable phrase structure. The irregular hypermetric organizationof the A section is balanced by a symmetrical unfolding of hypermetric two-bar phrasesin the bridge

The presence of chromaticism is integral to the structure of bebop melodies. Some of thechromatic additions, such as the metrically accented C≥5s in mm. 2, 6, 26, and 30, makesubtle references to the blues

In Prelude IV, Kapustin intensifies the Garner strumming effect by instructingthat the chords can be arpeggiated, simulating jazz guitar. Another aspect of Garner’sstyle, the offbeat “kicks” from the bass end of the keyboard, are also captured in bars 2and 4 of ex. 13.21

azz Style and Articulation: How to Get Your Band or Choir to Swing

Anticipation and Delayed Attack

Articulations and Effects

Jazz Style and Articulation: How to Get Your Band or Choir to Swing

Each of LSE's new MicroBachelors® programs includes four university-level courses from leading LSE faculty. Learners who successfully complete a MicroBachelors® program from LSE and are admitted into select online undergraduate degree programs from the University of London, with academic direction provided by LSE

Within 2 years, I became explicitly aware, in a visionary moment, of what I now call ‘natural inclusion’. I

But didn’t know how to express

திருமங்கை ஆழ்வார் எழுதிய “பெரிய திருமொழியில்” “எம்பெருமான் திறத்தில் உதவாத அவயவங்கள் பயனற்றன எனல்” என்ற 10 பாடல்களில், “கனை ஆர் கடலும் கருவிளையும் காயாவும் அனையானை அன்பினால் ஆர்வத்தால் என்றும் சுனை ஆர் மலர் இட்டு தொண்டராய் நின்று நினையாதார் நெஞ்சு என்றும் நெஞ்சு அல்ல கண்டாமே” iதில் “தொண்டராய் நின்று“ என்ற வார்த்தைகள் மட்டும் எனக்கு அவ்வளவு அதிர்வுகளை தந்தது.   என்னமோ நானே இதை எழுதியது போல பல நாட்கள் ஆனந்தத்தில் திருமங்கை ஆழ்வாரை கொண்டாடித் திளைத்தேன். வைஷ்ணவத்தின் சாரம்சத்தை இரண்டே வரிகளில் சொல்லி விட்டார் என்று தோன்றியது. 

பதிலீடு

often saw a potential need to access those materials again in subsequent courses, which justified their economic investment.

There is an enormous difference, for example, between the postmodernclaim that we have moved from the regime of the real into that of thesimulacrum and the posthuman claim that the real is structured bysimulacra.

The urgency of time may make it too onerous forthe extra effort of articulating actions as they are beingperformed, yet most emergency response requires somecommunication.

Explicitly articulated narratives mayalso make clearer that multiple sequences of actions maybe occurring simultaneously, thus resolving role conflictsby allowing multiple ways to accomplish a task

In other words, the articulation work [24], which had to be made explicit previously, became in part implicit by being embedded in the document and in the actions taken upon the document.

We see how problem definition, work articulation [37], and the materiality of work[27,35] come together to make the work happen in asocially-, spatially-, and temporally-distributed matter[14].

By ignoring the diversity and discord of the ‘goals’ of theparticipants involved, the differentiation of strategies, and the incongruence of theconceptual frames of reference within a cooperating ensemble, much of the currentCSCW research evades the problem of how to provide computer support for peoplecooperating through the establishment of a common information space.

On the one hand, the visibility requirement is amplified by this divergence. Thatis, knowledge of the identity of the originator and the situational context motivat-ing the production and dissemination of the information is required so as to enableany user of the information to interpret the likely motives of the originator. On theother hand, however, the visibility requirement is moderated by the divergence ofinterests and motives. A certain degree of opaqueness is required for discretionarydecision making to be conducted in an environment charged with colliding inter-ests. Hence,visibility must be bounded.

Thus, a computer-basedsystem supporting cooperative work involving decision making should enhancethe ability of cooperating workers to interrelate their partial and parochial domainknowledge and facilitate the expression and communication of alternative perspec-tives on a given problem. This requires a representation of the problem domainas a whole as well as a representation, in some form, of the mappings betweenperspectives on that problem domain.

If the decision making process (1) involves a large and indefinite number of peo-ple, (2) requires the integration of a number of different perspectives or domains,and (3) continues for a protracted period of time or even indefinitely, the interpreta-tion of the objects in a common database and hence the construction of a commoninformation space is hampered by the fact that the other originators and recipientsare not co-present.

The fact that information produced by discretionary decision making cannotbe conveyed anonymously has important implications for CSCW systems design.Naturally, such information must be accompanied by the identity of the source.But how to represent and present the identity of the source?

In cooperative work settings involving discretionary decision making, the exer-cise of mutual critique of the decisions arrived at by colleagues is required for allparticipants. Therefore, in order to be able to assess information generated by dis-cretionary decision making, each participant must be able to access the identity ofthe originator of a given unit of information.

At the level of the objects themselves, shareabilitymay not be a problem, but in terms of their interpretation, the actors must attempt tojointly construct a common information space which goes beyond their individualpersonal information spaces. A nice example of how this is a problem has been givenby Savage (1987, p. 6): ‘each functional department has its own set of meaningsfor key terms. [...] Key terms such aspart, project, subassembly, toleranceareunderstood differently in different parts of the company.’

Their importance lies in the interpretation human actors place on themeaning of the representational object. The distinction between the material carrierof information—the object—and its meaning is crucial. The material representationof information in the common space (e.g., a letter, memo, drawing, file) exists asan objective phenomenon and can be manipulated as an artifact. The semantics ofthe information carried by the artifact, however, is, put crudely, ‘in the mind’ of thebeholder, and the acquisition of information conveyed by the artifacts requires aninterpretive activity on the part of the recipient. Thus, a common information spaceencompasses the artifacts that are accessible to a cooperative ensembleas well asthe meaning attributed to these artifacts by the actors.

Cooperative work is not facilitated simply by the provision of a shared database, butrequires the active construction by the participants of a common information spacewhere the meanings of the shared objects are debated and resolved, at least locallyand temporarily. Objects must thus be interpreted and assigned meaning, meaningsthat are achieved by specific actors on specific occasions of use. Computer supportfor this aspect of cooperative work raises a host of interesting and difficult issues.

These protocols, formal structures, plans, procedures, and schemes can be con-ceived of asmechanismsin the sense that they (1) are objectified in some way(explicitly stated, represented in material form), and (2) are deterministic or at leastgive reasonably predictable results if applied properly. And they aremechanisms ofinteractionin the sense that they reduce the complexity of articulating cooperativework.

Therefore, instead of pursuing the elusive aim of devising organizational modelsthat are not limited abstractions and thus in principle brittle when confronted withthe inexhaustible multiplicity of reality, organizational models in CSCW applica-tions should be conceived of asresourcesfor competent and responsible workers.

In this section of the paper we broach two aspects of this articulation issue, onefocusing on the management of workflow, the other on the construction and manage-ment of what we term a ‘common information space’. The former concept has beenthe subject of discussion for some time, in the guise of such terms as office automa-tion and more recently, workflow automation. The latter concept has, in our view,been somewhat neglected, despite its critical importance for the accomplishmentof many distributed work activities

Articulation work

However, in general cooperative workin real world settings has a number of characteristics that must be taken into accountif CSCW systems are to be acceptable to users and, hence, commercially viable:

A cooperative work arrangement arises simply because there is no omniscientand omnipotent agent. Specifically, a cooperative work arrangement may emerge inresponse to different requirements (Schmidt,1990):

The Rich Diversity of Cooperative Work

As a research effort that involves a large number of established disciplines,research areas, and communities, CSCW is an arena of discordant views, incom-mensurate perspectives, and incompatible agendas. However, in the conception ofCSCW proposed here—as a research area devoted to exploring and meeting the sup-port requirements of cooperative work arrangements, CSCW is basically adesignoriented research area. This is the common ground. Enter, and you must change.

CSCW should be conceived of asan endeavor to understand the nature andrequirements of cooperative work with the objective of designing computer-basedtechnologies for cooperative work arrangements.