I disagree on two counts here. Firstly I never meant to say a paper is
simply a collection of information. In fact I would argue that my intention
is to raise the status of the composition process to primacy so as to enable
more creativity.

Secondly the role of the artist is arguably in choosing the _right_ set of
constraints for a particular composition. Constraints can be powerful and
focussing or they can be unhelpful or dangerous. You assume that our current
straighjacket is the right one. I would argue it is more like playing tennis
with one hand tied behind your back. The majority of papers published today
are _less_ than the sum of their parts. Ideas, data, and imagery that are
damaged, made less clear by being tied into an old fashioned framework. You
are saying that all poetry should be sonnets. I am saying that at the moment
we have haiku being rammed in as the heroic couple because sonnets are the
only way someone can get published

But I think you're iPhone analogy is apt. The iPhone is a closed system that
focuses on producing slick user experiences that match their expectations.
What it is very bad at is supporting radical innovation because the whole
environment makes taking risks and exploring new ideas difficult. It
channels behaviour and thinking in defined ways. This is exactly the
opposite of what we want in an optimised scientific environment. In science
we need generative systems that support the process of innovation, while
efficiently identifying blind alleys and mistakes. Science needs the madness
of open source. Technology and marketing can benefit from slick interfaces
and the iPhone approach. That is engineering, not science - and they have
very different needs.