[topicmaps-comment] on stratification and addressablenon-addressable subjects

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy


Emmanuil,

The need for some notions on the composition of an "intention", for example, is clear; and this is what you are suggesting.

But the problem of which enumerated set of compositional elements is problematic to all markup tasks - including the markup of human behavior.  We feel that there are solutions to the issue of enumeration of type, but this can not be taken as a passing remark.  There is some work that is required, some of this work requires both notational work (in specifying the things being enumerated and the attributes) and a theory of behavior. 

And, as always, there are more than one valid theory of behavior.   

The notational work might follow a tri-level architecture in order to reflect the new work on stratified complexity.  Once this new notation is adopted then the composition of "intention" might be controlled by a voting procedure as reflected in my notation at:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Appendix.htm

or more powerfully by Mill's logic as described at:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter9.htm

Both of these are related to something called rough sets, which have a stratified nature where upper and lower partitioning of a category overlap in different ways, except when the upper and lower partition are equal.  The question, "which of my three daughters do I love the most can be answered better using rough sets than when using a list.)


The theory of behavior needs experimental work to justify how types are enumerated and composed.  This involves science with experimental hypothesis and scholarly references to sound theory (sound in the sense of having been accepted by a community of scientists).  This is why an Knowledge Net Consortium is proposed:

http://www.ontologystream.com/threeYearPlan/plan.htm


(Again, the core problems for all of the standards processes, is the degree to which the standard is a consequent of battles between vested interests, as opposed to an objective and (even) scholarly development of community understanding about the process of enumeration of types.)

Descriptive enumeration is a term I coined to get at this issue, and one can imagine various individual and/or community vetting processes that are designed to create various lists.

The issue of how RDF classes are expected to be used is also important to talk about, and all I ever see is conversation among the initiated as if some first principles where understood by everyone who needs to understand.  

This is frustrating - but is also necessary as this community confusion is hiding the fact that we in the community have not been able to come to first principles; or when we do (such as when the Topic Maps standard finds the first principle regarding addressable and non-addressable subjects) then this first principle is not treated well over time.  It is argued that the first principle is not simple to implement, and therefore has to be worked around and eventually changed into something that is implement able as a first order logic, or as a list of some type, but wrong as a new and altered first principle.  (See my discussion on "situatedness".)

Part of the issue is background knowledge, but part of the issue has to do with the ultimate capacity of the models that are assumed in the representation of enumerated type.

The notion of percentage of 'membership" in a set of emotions is an example of using some assumptions about what is ultimately useful to do.   This notion of percentage is implement able, but is wrong as a first principle simply because there is no stratification that eliminates the "meaning" of the substructure during a process of aggregation of the composites into a whole greater than the sum of the parts.  he "parts" are no longer "parts".

In fact in the situated experience of a composition of hate and love, the experience is unique to the moment and the meaning of love and hate as subsumed completely - creating a new category of experience that is only somewhat improperly referred to as, say, 45% hate and 55% love.

Len, the process model for the tri level involves aggregation/disaggregation between the substructure and the middle world, and constraint/release between the ultrastructure and the middle world.  In natural systems these levels are separated by gaps (where things are not supposed to lawfully live) such as reflected in Plank's constant and the other physical constants of science.  So each level acts under conservation laws so that each level appears to not be influenced by the other levels.  The paradoxes are everywhere, of course; but this paradox is a feature of the interplay between rational philosophies (logical positivism) and stratified complexity that tells us where organizational levels are.  

The other perplexing difficulty has to do with the formation of new levels between levels, such as when a life is born or a new thought emerges in the mental experience.  So the "metaphysics" has not been worked out (by anyone, I think).  But real issues that really matter are taken head on. 

As an example of an enumerated type, we can look at David's contribution of a descriptive enumeration of "intention" in the syntax of RDF:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="#intention">
<daml:oneOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#threat" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#sarcasm" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#joke" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#earnestness" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#request" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#truth" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#overestimation" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#assent" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#concealment" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#exaggeration" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#ridicule" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#courtesy" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#gratitude" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#forgiveness" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#envy" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#irascibility" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#humor" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#veiled threat" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#seriousness" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#facetiousness" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#warning" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#beg" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#lie" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#underestimation" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#dissent" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#disclosure" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#deception" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#ingratitude" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#revenge" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#jealousy" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#resentment" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#destruction" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#disruption" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#deflection" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#disturbance" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#damage" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#coercion" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#steal" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#usurp" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#disinform" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#dismiss" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#undermine" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#distress" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#loss" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#gain" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#sympathy" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#support" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#empathy" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#complete" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#create" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#build" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#construction" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#situate" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#contextualize" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#agency" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#motivate" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#encourage" />
  <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#succeed" />
</daml:oneOf>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Now one can ask about the origin of this list of about attributes.  Is the list complete in every way or are there some issues here and there with one or more of the attributes?

Who has decided on these and not some other attributes?  Can we add or subtract to this list?  

David, your ability to help us understand some of the background issues, that you might appear to be making here, would be appreciated.