One thing that particularly resonated with me was where Rowntree discusses different forms of diagrams. Here's a snippet:
In this kind of diagram, as David Hawkridge says: "lines connect words, reflecting connections of some kind without revealing exactly what. Moreover, many other lines could be added to show additional connections".
Furthermore, he points out that the map of educational technology "could be drawn differently ... by other educational technologists". I bring your attention to this perhaps obvious remark because many people setting out to draw a concept map seem to get obsessed with uncovering the "true, underlying structure" of the subject.
Even if such a structure exists, there is no need for that degree of dedication. Drawing such diagrams is a personal and subjective activity. It's purpose is simply to help you sort out your own understanding about how the concepts within your field connect up.So long as you find it helpful in your own planning, there is no need to worry that others might have mapped the territory differently.
This quote could just as well apply to the use of the UML in software development. I'm sure we've all met overcomplex diagrams, and been tempted to add more and more stuff in the hope of producing "perfect" pictures. UML pundit Martin Fowler has been known to encourage quick and loose, but effective use of UML.
Now I'm really looking forward to reading the rest of the book, in hope of other such.parallel insights.
Map made a slightly cryptic comment about "broiling" pebble. I still don't really understand what she was on about, but it did remind me of the doubly-appropriate story of stone soup.
Another pebble user Ryan mused back in October 2003 about why Simon decided on the name "pebble". Plenty of possibilities, but the stone soup metaphor is quite neat, as is the idea that a pebble is smooth and rocks a little.
Update. While I was writing this she went and added more to the post so it makes a little more sense. Underhand move, I reckon :)