Elsewhere, I have argued that there should not be "point" attractors as
binding points, but rather "attractor basins" as binding regions. You have
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 Maps
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 point"
for the concept to which it provides reference.
That DKR is, itself, the place where ongoing, never-ending, always evolving
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.
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 Published
> > Subject Indicators.
>(At the risk of being grievously outspoken, opinionated, re-opening old
>wounds, and so forth...)
>Not necessarily. It does require *negotiation* of degree of equivalence, or
>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 that
>assertion of need, on the assumption that Topic Maps will become/are
>becoming a significant technology in global human affairs. (And from what I
>know of the process, everyone is so beloved of mad-dash development of the
>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 often
>result in losses for both parties;
> I don't believe that relinquishing the idea of concepts as theories is a
>good idea long term, particularly in respect of innovation;
> I would love to see someone nail down the PSI for 'vagueness' first, so
>that we can all point at it together with a percentage indicator when none
>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 find any
>other PSI that expressed what I needed to have someone else agree about will
>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...?
>I know the technology well, I know its advantages and its limitations.
>I know that in most senses Topic Maps is still a prototypical technology,
>and that therefore I am not asking that they be the complete solution to
>Life, The Universe, and Everything, all at once, now.
>However, I would respectfully request of the Topic Maps standard development
>community that they look very hard at the question, "Is there a better way
>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.
------------------------ 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 - 10:08:41 PDT