No need to apologize. I think I understand how your nerve endings feel :))
In fact, I used the Topic Maps terminology (PSI) for the simplicity of
discourse. My feeling right now (and it is the sense of my involvment in
that OASIS process) is that this notion of binding points goes far beyond
the scope of topic maps. What is at stake is the semantic integrity of
semantics in the following kind of loop :
user> knowledge base > system application > intelligent agent > system
application > user interface >user
Whatever the syntax or languages or paradigms, that kind of loop will be
able to keep semantic integrity if every stage can check through some
binding point the identity of what they are about - no more, no less. And of
course that identity is not grounded on the "label at the top", but on what
is going on around the point (the conversation).
PS : Getting late here, but I will answer tomorrow to your former remarks on
cultural imperialism. Too much to say to tackle that tonight.
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Peter Jones" <email@example.com>
À : <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé : samedi 8 septembre 2001 21:28
Objet : Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
> Hi Jack,
> I apologize to Bernard and the unrev list for the force of expression in
> that last mail -- it's been a long day and I have too many exposed nerve
> endings in the Topic Maps zone, largely for reasons that are nothing to do
> with TMs.
> I agree with the attractor basin approach you outline below.
> I now recollect that we reached sufficient proximity within such a basin
> generated in discussion some time back.
> However, I think it is important to note that 'binding' should take place
> based on the content of the DKR and not based solely on the label attached
> to the 'point' at the 'top'.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Park" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
> > Hi Peter,
> > Elsewhere, I have argued that there should not be "point" attractors as
> > binding points, but rather "attractor basins" as binding regions. You
> > stated that case from a powerful point of view.
> > The question, as I see it is this: how to implement attractor basins?
> > My conjecture has been that the PSI that Bernard mentions and discusses
> > quite eloquently in his chapter in the forthcoming book on XML Topic
> > should be something the equivalent of an entry into a tiny DKR for the
> > concept it represents. That DKR is, itself, an evolving space of
> > contextual definitions, discussions, and representations, rather than a
> > lone "point in space" representing for all humankind a lone "binding
> > for the concept to which it provides reference.
> > That DKR is, itself, the place where ongoing, never-ending, always
> > negotiation occurs. In the strongest sense of facilitated evolution, a
> > tiny DKR for each "binding point"-->"binding region" is just one
> > implementation of the requirement that each concept in ontology space be
> > capable of being negotiated.
> > Cheers
> > Jack
> > At 05:24 PM 9/8/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Bernard Vatant wrote:
> > > >Bottom line :
> > > >Binding separately developed but overlapping ontologies will need
> > > >non-ambiguous stable binding points. Topic Maps people call that
> > > > Subject Indicators.
> > >
> > >Dear Bernard,
> > >
> > >(At the risk of being grievously outspoken, opinionated, re-opening old
> > >wounds, and so forth...)
> > >
> > >Not necessarily. It does require *negotiation* of degree of
> > >measure of similarity of concepts for the purposes of that particular
> > >agreement to communicate.
> > >
> > >There are aslo deep, future, ethico-political issues tucked away in
> > >assertion of need, on the assumption that Topic Maps will become/are
> > >becoming a significant technology in global human affairs. (And from
> > >know of the process, everyone is so beloved of mad-dash development of
> > >technology that I am uncertain as to whether anyone in that group could
> > >possibly have had the time to consider those issues fully.)
> > >
> > ><rant severity="Gee, I wish I didn't have to...">
> > >I don't agree with cultural imperialism;
> > > I do believe that *simple* mechanisms of cultural compromise can
> > >result in losses for both parties;
> > > I don't believe that relinquishing the idea of concepts as theories
> > >good idea long term, particularly in respect of innovation;
> > > I would love to see someone nail down the PSI for 'vagueness'
> > >that we can all point at it together with a percentage indicator when
> > >of us agree completely about any other PSI we're pointing at later on.
> > >How do I know that a particular PSI I've created because I couldn't
> > >other PSI that expressed what I needed to have someone else agree about
> > >be construed in exactly the same manner by anyone else?
> > >Will I need a Topic Map of the PSIs so I can find a PSI on the Web that
> > >suits my purposes?
> > >Will I need a Topic Map of Topic Maps of PSIs...?
> > ></rant>
> > >
> > >I know the technology well, I know its advantages and its limitations.
> > >
> > >I know that in most senses Topic Maps is still a prototypical
> > >and that therefore I am not asking that they be the complete solution
> > >Life, The Universe, and Everything, all at once, now.
> > >However, I would respectfully request of the Topic Maps standard
> > >community that they look very hard at the question, "Is there a better
> > >of doing X?" all the way down the line, not just for the sake of more
> > >efficient algorithms, and not rush things.
> > >
> > >I want these things to improve the quality of users' lives.
> > >Faith without due consideration is dangerous.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Peter
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> > Unsubscribe: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
> > List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure all your Web servers now: Get your FREE Guide and learn to: DEPLOY THE LATEST ENCRYPTION,
DELIVER TRANSPARENT PROTECTION, and More!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 13:58:18 PDT