Peter J. Denning is something of a computing hero to me. He formulated the concept of the working set, around which I based my MSc project and he has been personally very kind to me in reading and commenting on that report.
So, the article has written (for the ACM), with Nicholas Dew, in which they debunk the idea of the “elevator pitch” as a key business tool is doubly interesting, as, in my “real” job, elevator pitches are regarded as essential tools of the trade:
To make this work, you need to re-interpret the pitch. It is not a transmission of information but an offer to havea conversation. It is often much easier to ask someone to join you in a conversation than it is to present a polished, sticky, commercial-grade presentation. A conversational pitch will get you closer to your idea being adopted.
Well worth reading the whole thing – it’s not long, though not quite of elevator pitch length either!
The style used in the book appears to be that favoured by the American Mathematical Society – the so-called “authorship trigraph” – with references made up of letters from the author’s name followed by the last two figures of the year of original publication eg., [Bak91] which references in the bibliography:
[Bak91] T.P. Baker. Stack-based scheduling of real-time processes. Journal of Real Time Systems, 3, 1991.
Now it is possible, if I were an expert in the field that I might recognise this reference, but it is far from helpful. When referencing papers written by multiple authors the system is hopeless – using the first letters of the first three authors and ignoring the rest, eg., is a real reference in the book to a paper with eight authors. I really doubt many people would get that straight away.
But at least this reference system contains slightly more than the IEEE‘s citation system, which demands papers are merely referenced by a bracketed number in the text, eg., .
These reference systems are so widely used that I worried that my own use of the Chicago system – which specifies author and year, eg., (Denning, 1970), would be frowned upon in Birkbeck – but a re read of the regulations showed their demand was for a consistent and well-recognised system.
The ACM, too, promote a sensible citation format eg., [Denning 1970].
Does this matter? Yes. I am sure many readers of these books and papers are students who are conducting literature reviews or similar exercises. Reading the original reference may often be important and having to flick back and forth to a bibliography to check the meaning of an incomprehensible reference is not calaculated to add to the sum of human happiness.
(I don’t have any real complaints about the book though – except that the translation is plainly a bit stilted – for instance, the first sentence of the book refers to real time systems being investigated “in the last years” – a fairly common mistake in syntax from non-English speakers and one that the editors really ought to have corrected. But the occasional infelicity of language does not detract from the book’s overall appeal.)