[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] Re: Structural constraints are extensions of equality
Andrius, Here are some general ideas I had when reading your mail on xtm-wg and some of your articles. When I am thinking, the thing that could be isolated and named a "an indivisible thought" is always about a particular item/topic/concept. The "thought" itself almost always concerns one or more remarks/reflections about some couple/triple/... of individual "indivisible thoughts". But when I reconsider one of the "indivisible thoughts" in most cases they appear to be composed of other subthoughts that have associations/relationships to other items. And this is a never-ending story. IMO the subdivision in Sequences, Hierarchies and Networks is correct but sequences, hierarchies and (sub) networks are always subpart of the overall network. A particular sequence or hierarchy is always relatively short compared to the networks they belong to. One practical aspect of registering thoughts is that they only express that part of my real reflections that seem to be "new". Most of my context, i.e. the information what for me is obvious, isn't mentioned. This means that when I review that note sometime later I will fully understand what I mentioned. On the other hand, somebody else will not be able to understand completely what I wrote down, as his context/knowledge will be different. So if the purpose of writing down the thought is to be remembered by myself this works fine, but if the thought has to be communicated to somebody else the form/depth/explanations must be completely different. As for the conversion of structured thoughts between one tool and another I have one remark. I didn't came across a very important aspect of conversion in your papers. When converting from a tool which let you express only partly thoughts and the relationships between them (like theBrain with only one implicit parent-child relationship and n implicit links) to a tool which enables you to express more completely the thoughts (like one based on Topic Maps, or like Notion System based on something close to a semantic network) you will not be able to supply the data necessary to reach the full power of the target tool. The other way around (from the more complete to the lesser tool) there should be no big problems. This implicates that the intermediate format must be one allowing the data from the most complete tool to be expressed completely without any losses. Friendly Greetings Ronald Poell --- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@m...> wrote: > I wrote earlier about the work by the Minciu Sodas Laboratory to develop > an import/export standard (as simple as a spreadsheet) for tools for > organizing thoughts (such as TheBrain, www.thebrain.com, and > MindManager, www.mindmanager.com) with emphasis on the kinds of > structural constraints used. We may describe this as a simplification > (popularization?) of TopicMaps. I share new ideas and appreciate your > help in adding to the kinds of structures that I describe. > Andrius Kulikauskas > ******************************** > --------------------------------------------------------------------<e|- Download iPlanet Web Server, FastTrack Edition 4.1 for FREE, and start publishing dynamic web pages today! http://click.egroups.com/1/7540/4/_/337252/_/965039766/ --------------------------------------------------------------------|e>- To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC