Jack, your applied QP theory about 'envisionment' with process rules firing,
etc., has an interesting correlation with a paper about "Collective Mental Maps
(CMM) with weighted links algorithms from our friends at the Principia
"Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the Web: algorithms to
develop a collective mental map", Computational and Mathematical Theory of
"Collective intelligence is defined as the ability of a group to solve more
problems than its individual members. It is argued that the obstacles created by
individual cognitive limits and the difficulty of coordination can be overcome
by using a collective mental map (CMM). A CMM is defined as an external memory
with shared read/write access, that represents problem states, actions and
preferences for actions. It can be formalized as a weighted, directed graph. The
creation of a network of pheromone trails by ant colonies points us to some
basic mechanisms of CMM development: averaging of individual preferences,
amplification of weak links by positive feedback, and integration of specialised
subnetworks through division of labor. Similar mechanisms can be used to
transform the World-Wide Web into a CMM, by supplementing it with weighted
links. Two types of algorithms are explored: 1) the co-occurrence of links in
web pages or user selections can be used to compute a matrix of link strengths,
thus generalizing the technique of "collaborative filtering"; 2) learning web
rules extract information from a user's sequential path through the web in order
to change link strengths and create new links. The resulting weighted web can be
used to facilitate problem-solving by suggesting related links to the user, or,
more powerfully, by supporting a software agent that discovers relevant
documents through spreading activation."
Jack Park wrote:
> I have been thinking about use cases, ontologies, and scenarios. I bring to
> these thoughts my experience with qualitative process theory, a
> representation and inferencing mechanism by which one can express physical
> processes in ontological terms.
> QP theory says that we need to know stuff about the following:
> QP theory allows us to build an 'envisionment' in which a graph (sometimes
> very large graph) is built with its origin being a node called 'initial
> conditions.' I have imported a metaphor about theator into QP theory, so,
> one 'sets the stage' by defining initial conditions. There is no 'script'
> on this stage, just process rules, some of which can 'fire' changing the
> stage setting allowing for other rules to fire. Each 'firing' defines a new
> stage setting (node in the graph). When multiple rules can fire against a
> particular node, you have multiple branches from that node to new nodes.
> The process continues until no more rules can fire, or until 'stopping
> rules' --which define some goal stage setting -- fire.
> Thinking in newtonian terms, moving from one node to the next along some arc
> means that the arc represents some 'mechanism' or presence of a causal
> mechanism at work (e.g. the rule that fired). Defining the entire
> vocabulary of such a QP universe is, indeed, defining an ontology. Process
> rules appear as 'axioms' in the ontology.
> Now, what are use cases? They are simply very course grained envisionments.
> Basically, the presence of actors, and a description of the gross change to
> occur between initial conditions (which are not stated in use cases) and
> final conditions (which are also not stated in use cases).
> Consider this use case: UC-ActorViewDocument
> Actors: user, OHS
> Action: user views document with OHS
> Rather high level, what?
> Now, what are scenarios? They are simply finer grained expansions of the
> extremely crude envisionment expressed in a use case.
> Consider this scenario for UC-ActorViewDocument
> Actors: user, OHS, Home Page, Desired Document
> Relations: user sitting at OHS terminal
> States: OHS 'Home Page' displayed.
> In this scenario, the action is a user behavior, not a process rule
> Actor clicks hyperlink to document.
> Actors: same
> Relations: same
> States: Desired Document displayed
> Why is this interesting? or, why should anyone care about this?
> Turns out that we now have a shell with which to invent OHS. We can now
> begin to refine the scenario to include a bunch of rule firings implying
> behaviors of OHS itself. From that, we get a simulation of OHS in action.
> Back to ontologies.
> Consider this: in the use case arena, there will always be a huge number of
> 'common' use cases, very much like the example above. Once we have all the
> common use cases constructed, we can now begin to layer more specialized use
> cases that imply, or rely on the existence of common use cases. We might
> think of these as 'domain specific' use cases. So, we begin to think of the
> common use cases as the 'roots' of --eventually--a forest of specialized
> usecases. The common use cases represent the basis for interoperability
> among the specialty domains.
> Now, just substitute the term 'ontology' for the term 'use case' and you
> have the mapping. Bingo. Get the ontology right, and the rest falls out
> I believe that I have outlined the case for:
> using QP theory as a kind of formalism on which we begin to map out use
> cases and scenarios
> developing use cases and scenarios, leading to an OHS ontology from
> which the entirety of OHS can then be developed.
> What I have not outlined is the need to bring pragmatics and knowledge
> representation best practices into this picture. For that, film at 11...
> This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
> contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
> the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
> of the message and its attachments and notify email@example.com
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Shortcut URL to this page:
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 23:54:46 PST