The topic maps folks do this with a *public subject* which is being defined
as a registered URN. Registering URNs doesn't appear to be all that easy.
In a closed system, you just start with the number 0, grab a couple of
numbers for some reserved things, then start giving every concept a new,
unique number. Pointrel does this. I suppose you'll need to use long
integers to pull that off, but, what the heck. Problem is, you cannot share
with others; that requires grabbing numbers from some registry. Unique URLs
would do, I suppose. If you chose a unique URL, then, at that web page, you
can put some kind of verbiage, photo, movie, whatever, so that all viewers
grok the same thing.
I refer to this process as *semantic grounding*. In closed systems, it's
rather easy. In open systems, it's really hard. Imagine, however, something
akin to a centrally agreed upon web site, say bootstrap.org, at which a
registry is formed and all the peoples of the world unite around such a
registry. Then, you get into the problem of censorship; it's not gonna be
very long before all the four letter words, smut, whatever, gets registered.
In an open and completely free society, there may be nothing wrong with
that, but we all know that it's simply not the case that *every* human will
agree to such an arrangement. Thusly, *semantic grounding* is liable to end
up restricted to important domains -- those of the kinds described in
Unrev-II, and a few more. In those domains, censorship will go with the
The trick, however, is to manage the impact of personal bias/POV/whatever in
the creation of grounded concepts. I believe grounding should come from
collaboration, not fiat. In fact, it is interesting to ponder the nature of
what we are, how we are, and beyond.
We are constructed with a 4-letter alphabet. That's it. What tiny alphabet
would we need to build a software project that would, given time,
collaboration, and lots of will power, self-construct all the grounded
concepts in the universe of discourse it experiences? That's a tough one.
In fact, imho, it is _the_ tough one, none the less, the tough one we really
ought to be aiming at. Of course, we need to spin off working prototypes of
significantly lessor sophistication in order to gain experience with the
concept. I, personally, am rather focussed on the nature of that 4-letter
alphabet. That's partly why I think that projects like Pointrel, complete
with Paul's line of reasoning, are important to this forum.
From: Eric Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> This comes from the "architectural snag" discussion.
> It's a question Jack Park raised with respect to
> Paul Fernhout's triad system. But it identifies an
> interesting and important problem. So I wanted to
> raise it to the highest level in the discussion:
> > Consider a human, Jo Bag'O'Donuts. We see her riding in
> > a car as a passenger. We know here to be a Java programmer.
> > We also know her as Don's wife, Suzie's mom, and so forth.
> > Grounded in all these contexts is the individual Jo.
> > How do we represent her in way that we can use her in
> > different contexts?
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
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 10:40:30 PDT