The subject of forgetting is really complex. Time based forgetting is not
perfect. It often happens to me that I don't use some piece of information
for a year or two and then suddenly find it very useful and I'm happy I
didn't discard it. Relevance based forgetting is equally imperfect since
what has not seemed relevant for a long time may seem very relevant
tomorrow. Forgetting is a basic human capability but do machines need to
have it? Aren't they supposed to fix our deficiencies rather than mimic us?
From: Jack Park [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: jeudi, 13. septembre 2001 06:58
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
At 07:01 PM 9/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Alex Shapiro wrote:
> > ...With time, older nodes fade (or become more
> > remote in some other way) and eventually disappear. Nodes can be kept
> > visible, or if invisible then returned to visibility, by linking to
> > them.
>Quite reasonable. That's a different kind of prioritizing -- a "fading
>but it seems quite useful.
Very much like forgetting, which any complex system with memory probably
needs to do.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 13:00:19 PDT