RE: [humanmarkup-comment] RE: [topicmaps-comment] multilingualthesaurus - language, scope, and topic naming constraint

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Len said:

"The interpreter rules.
HyTime AFs serve as a means to make an explicit map among
enabling architectures.

These are not heady concepts.  They are implementation
constraints."

***

<Paul Prueitt>

<header> Sorry for the cc list participation in this discussion, feel free
to use the delete button, but Len's view point is the point that I am trying
to make.  The discussion will die down in a day or so...  So just hit
delete.  Live with it.. *s

Perhaps it is important for a policy discussion to occur on this.
Particularly those in the government in this cc list, I feel that you have
the responsibility to engage in this discussion.  You may disagree, but you
are the civil servant, not I. </header>

***

<Paul Prueitt>

With all respects, the notion that situated scope IS an implementation
constraint, that can be engineered in advance, is simply the current
paradigm that blocks the world from making progress towards true knowledge
technologies.

This is my claim.

Len's comment MIGHT be an example of how a paradigmatic block is
instantiated ?  Perhaps I misunderstand, Len?

***

A formative process model that produces ontology that late binds scope is
what is needed in cases where miscommunication and false sense making IS
occurring.  It is not about being professional, it is about being correct in
what we claim to be the features of these topic map engines.  Yes?

This is how the human brain works to produce awareness (of knowledge).  Does
anyone not agree with this point?

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter5.htm


HyTime does NOT provide this late binding, does it?  It does adjust some
things for a temporal scope - and this is part of the brilliance of HyTime,
thanks to Steve Newcomb's insights about music.  But well defined
limitations in our intelligence communities' use of HyTime systems are well
known.  Yes?

In my design for the NSA declassification engine (that Industry would not
allow me to build - in 1998), I address these issues towards the end of the
long and "heady" unpublished paper:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/SDIUT/sdlong.htm

In summary, a theory of similarity has to be mixed with a theory of temporal
linking to get BOTH late binding AND correctness.  Semantics (correctness of
meaning in proper scope) is NOT something that can be encapsulated as a
formalism?  (I claim.)   Most notions of formal semantics is just wrong in
every sense, and a practiced deception in most senses.  (Like the notion of
artificial *intelligence*.)

Synthetic intelligence and synthetic semantics might be better terminology.
Yes?  The mixing is with a theory of stratified complexity as in:

http://www.ontologystream.com/bSLIP/finalReview.htm

And if it does allow scope to be defined late, does the scope that is
defined handle the "heady" issues that I have been very precise in
specifying?  Is there no justice for someone being precise and crisp?

The answer is no, here also.

***

Does anyone have a principled argument that I am wrong...  using an argument
that does not avoid the statement of the true and acknowledged issues?

To start with the notion of "heady" is simply to insult a point of view and
use a appeal to the lowest common denominator... which has become a
reduction to the viewpoint of the business mind - interested only in profit?

(Sorry to state it this way.. I try hard to be polite.)

This does nothing other than force one viewpoint on another, as if the
argument is settled.  This is what some Nations are doing to other Nations,
and perhaps this winning over cultural viewpoint is important in the New
War, but it is also important to understand what we are doing to other
people's natural rights (those not involved in terrorism.)   I am deeply in
sorrow over this lack of perception on our part - but this is part of our
(American) narrowness of understanding other cultural viewpoints problems..
yes...  We have a long ways to go if America is to maintain the high moral
ground over the next few years.

***

But, with respects, the use of the term "heady" is a social control scope
that is directed at blocking the discussion as to whether of not the
practice of developing Topic Maps has become reducible to XML with RDF.
Many in the TM community thinks that this is desirable, I do not agree.  We
have talked, in this forum, many times about this very issue.  Yes?

The philosophical value of the TM 1.0 standard was in the prominence of the
later Wittgenstein notion of non-addressable subjects.  This may or may not
be heady, but a deeper understanding of the nature of the private experience
of knowledge and an actual science of knowledge sharing processes is needed.
Sigh...

http://www.ontologystream.com/distanceLearning/VKC.htm

What is NOT heady is the tremendous complicated quality of the current IT
approaches toward ontology construction?

We as a world society spend (and mostly waste) hundreds of million (billons)
each year on failed attempts at knowledge archiving and management.  Why?
Does this have something to do with reductionism in computer theory?

 I think that the answer will be determined, by history, to be yes, and with
this answer our society can sort out the purposeful confusion that supports
many evils ... including the up-coming Cyber war from the other side of the
New War.  Dark alleys of the Internet.

http://www.ontologystream.com/administration/toOSTP.htm

Perhaps because the policy makers (whom I address NOW directly - at the
National Science Foundation and the White House OSTP) allow the engineering
community to tell us that scope is an engineering problem!

Is biology reducible to computer science?  Are you sure about this?  is
moral value reducible to engineering constraints?  Are you sure about this?

This current process of creating massive and static ontologies is good for
the ontology industry only up until the user community finally looks up and
says, yes the system WORKS but the system is not correct.

Will this be the sequel to the .com bubble.  Perhaps we can call this ".com
II"?


Comments?