Re: [humanmarkup] food for thought

["Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>]

> The best one might do is specify the emotion, then
> provide a list of resources (say clips, phrases, etc)
> and ASSERT these are related by the named emotion.
> This is interpretive work and the hermaneutics folks
> have a heckuva time on such subjects.

Ah, so we get back to the old context/assertion loop. I'm not sure why
bundling resources into one group and saying "there all give this emotion"
is any better than saying "this one brings up this emotion..." and then
graph merging. The benefit you get from doing it that way is that you don't
have to keep manipulating groups, and you can allow for more discrete data.
Sorry, groups just make me think of hierarchies again... ontologies don't
have to be that way.

> Then everyone argues about that.

I disagree :-)

> It is the authority problem sometimes discussed in
> threads about the usefulness of knowledge bases.

Ooh, guess how many of them I've gotten into? The way around it is to
decentralize, bring in the trust mechanism, and then decentralize the trust
mechanism. No one said it would be easy, but at least it's possible. It's
the old newbie "what if HumanMarkup runs amock, and start publishing bad
data?" question. As Manos mentioned, we define the roots of our particular
ontology tree ("the" ontology tree), but we must let people know we're not
going to charge for it [q.v. TimBL's XML 2000 keynote].

Have there been many previous discussions about trust, digital signatures,
and so on? I think that's a very important aspect of HumanMarkup, because
trust is a very important aspect of privacy. If we're aiming to augment
human communication, then we must work with it, not around it.

> One accepts that kind of assertion or refutes it, but it
> turns on local votes and the extent of time the assertion
> is in effect, so it comes down to popular sentiment
> or as the topic map heads say, just opinions.

Yeah... I call it "context", but that conflicts sometimes with an RDF term.
Semiosis people probably have a word for it too - the concept that the
binding between the symbol and the resource, and the relationships in the
system are interpreted depending on the local situation within a given time
frame. Context.

> CCR and Maria Muldaur?  Really!   So I'm not the
> only PsychoTrope here.  I thought we were a Dead
> culture.

No chance. I'm curently listening to "Oh! Darling", and then I'll probably
put on "Axis: Bold As Love" :-)

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .