[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic Maps.. .)
Eric.... The main reason I was unspecific was that from the presentations I heard, I didn't think that *in the context of an XML conference*, anyone had actually spoken out of turn; also because of the impression I had that the annoyance of the folks concerned had built up over the session rather than being caused by any one speaker. "The problem" if you like was the sensitivities of the KE folks! - in particular, "the problem" was their interpretation as technical terms, and so as specific technical claims of what Topic Maps could "provide", some words and phrases which I guess were intended as more general descriptions (& eye-openers for XML-folks) of the potential uses of Topic Maps. (For example, I remember one forceful statement that a bunch of associations and instances on a diagram plus some informal typing didn't amount to a "semantic network" - and that such a thing would never pass review in any of "their" conferences - which last may even be the central underlying emotional point.) The particular phrases/words which I believe from that experience that we need to use with due care are: - semantic net or network - knowledge model - inference (especially the difference between being capable of supporting inference, and being a sufficient agent or means of inference in itself) I should also say that I believe many of us are already being careful and exact... and that this is not the first time I've seen the re-purposing of words & phrases for precise uses in computer science leading to misunderstandings. Does this answer? Cheers Ann W. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Freese [mailto:eric@isogen.com] > Sent: 23 August 2000 15:31 > To: XTM Working Group > Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic > Maps...) > > > Ann: > > Perhaps you could illuminate us with what claims caused these > people so much > distress. As one of the speakers in that session, I would > appreciate the > feedback. > > My paper was meant to start people thinking in the direction > that topic maps > might be able to be used to interchange knowledge bases. I > also wanted to > demonstrate that it was, in fact, possible to build (simple) > knowledge bases > from topic map information. I would love the opportunity to > work with the > knowledge engineering community so investigate this further. > > Eric > > <!-- **************************************************************** > Eric Freese Email: eric@isogen.com > Director - Professional Services - Midwest Voice: 651 636 9180 > ISOGEN International/DataChannel Fax: 651 636 9191 > 1611 West County Road B - Suite 204 WWW: www.isogen.com > St. Paul, MN 55113 www.datachannel.com > ***************************************************************** --> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wrightson, Ann [mailto:Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 1:09 AM > > To: 'xtm-wg@egroups.com' > > Subject: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and > Topic Maps...) > > > > > > Hi folks... > > > > I don't know if you discussed this at all in Montreal, but I am very > > concerned that XTM should encourage/facilitate good working-with the > > long-standing academic knowledge-engineering community by > > a) being (very) moderate and realistic in its claims for XTM *by > > itself* as > > a knowledge modelling technique - XTM's main strength could > well be in > > providing the "hooks" which enable the wide range of > established knowledge > > modelling techniques to link to Web resources, and also in > > providing simple > > exchangeable *static* representations of (some) such models; > > b) working with folks who have done eg semantic modelling for > > years, rather > > than trying to (re)invent ways of doing it without the > benefit of that > > experience. > > > > This concern is based on back-of-room conversations at XML > Europe, where I > > found myself trying to bring some experienced knowledge engineers > > "back down > > off the ceiling", and into a more realistically > appreciative frame of mind > > regarding Topic Maps, after some rash claims from the podium... > > > > Cheers > > > > Ann W. > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------<e|- > Need EDA tools on a short term or peak load basis? > Take a free 7 day trial! > http://click.egroups.com/1/8464/4/_/337252/_/967041084/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------|e>- > > To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> Test your WML code with our Online WAP Testing Tool at http://click.egroups.com/1/7799/4/_/337252/_/967109285/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> 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