Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>]

Ditto Len,

Your box scenario is fine by me, it's the overall collection of boxes and how they
"overlap" with each other in a somewhat fuzzy way that I'm talking about.  Trying to
find the appropriate box "interfaces" or "relationship mappings"  that will make
HumanMarkup useful.
But this will be an evolutionary process.   Thanks for the comments.

Rob

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:

> We have to break a domain down to schematize it.  Emergent properties
> arise out of controls over engaging forces, if you like
> the momentum metaphors.  But to get to that point, we need
> the pieces first.  One might think of topics as emergent
> but someone please show me how we model that ex nihilo.
> The problem of schematization is breaking something down
> into pieces that can't be assembled into recognizable wholes.
>
> We are boxing ourselves into corners.  That is
> what boxes do; specify corners.  We will have to do this
> often and sometimes throw away the boxes until we
> are able to create boxes that fit together in
> demonstrably useful ways.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Nixon [mailto:rnixon@qdyn.com]
>
> Again, just trying to make sure that we aren't boxing ourselves into a corner as
> we develop our schema.  Many people often try to break systems down into
> isolated pieces, but we run into the danger of missing the emergent properties
> that arise out of the interactions that form the "whole".