I heard it rumored around n'orleans that some clarification of "object" could
be possible on xmca. Given that one of L*'s paper on boundary objects
(institutional ecology...) does not reference Leont'ev, we could assume the
L* boundary "object" to be distinct from the Leont'ev "object". I suspect
that there is more than just a coincidence in words and a difference in
paradigm here. Can it just be the case that a boundary object is an artifact
shared between/among activity systems? Could it really be that simple? Or
is there more? If so, what? What can we draw upon to decide?
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:10 PDT