Re: [unrev-II] Augment + categories = OHS v0.1

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 19:00:18 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "[unrev-II] [Fwd: Source in XML]"

    Jack Park wrote:
    > ... Gil uses the term "rigidify." That works for me, but there
    > are other points of view as well. At issue is the fact that we
    > all categorize the world in our own way. Production-line education
    > tends to enforce standardization in that arena, but we are still
    > individuals with our own non-linearities and so forth.
    Ah... Now I understand the point that Gil was trying to make.
    Yes, this is a system usage issue. The larger the system gets,
    the more rigid the categories become -- to the degree that they
    become standards. To the degree they don't, similar and redundant
    categories are continually added to the system.

    On the other hand, categories with various "shades of meaning"
    might even be useful. If someone develops a formulation for
    defining near-equivalences, of the form:
      "hyper" = 90% match with "intense"
              = 80% match with "over the top"
              = xx% match with conceptX

    Then some interesting fuzzy search capabilities begin to be
    possible. I don't intend to work on that layer of the system,
    but it is interesting that the foundation we are building may
    just enable it.

    --As you point out, there is still the proble of mapping from
    *my* concepts to some "shared" conceptual framework out there.

    > The fundamental architecture being espoused within the meeting
    > was that of an engine that mutates original documents by adding
    > links to them. The fundamental approach taken in the architecture
    > I present here is one in which absolutely no modifications are
    > ever performed on original documents. All linkages are formed
    > "above" the permanent record of human discourse and experience.
    > I strongly believe that the extra effort required to avoid
    > building a system that simply plays with original documents will
    > prove to be of enormous value in the larger picture.
    This idea deserves careful consideration. I have a suspicion you
    may be right about that. Our talks about how to use Wiki effectively
    have really centered on how we control modifications to underlying
    documents. I haven't come at things from the perspective you
    suggest. It's time to take a detailed look at that approach, I think.

    Also: I'm delighted that we're not going for a full ontology in
    version 1. Yay! But I am equally delighted that system we seem to
    be zeroing in on may help provide a basis for that work. Life should
    be interesting.

    Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch?
    Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors.

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 19:07:33 PDT