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

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Steven,

You are saying

" We
    believed that, if a topic is supposed to be
    considered a member of a scope, then, by Golly, it
    should appear inside the corresponding <scope>
    element.  Otherwise, the syntax becomes
    unlearnable, because it is too tricky."

But this is not how the brain works.  And the brain is the only system that
can do knowledge processing at this time.  Somehow the brain has a by-pass
that avoids the very problem that you say prevents late binding of scope.

So if this problem of scope cannot be late bound, as in part of a real-time
formative process, then XTM can never be considered to be knowledge
representation...  at least if what we mean by *knowledge representation* is
the contents of the mental event which is experienced by an individual human
when he/she has knowledge and is using this knowledge.

Now this is, of course, a point of view.

The progress in topic maps may be limited to certain type of encyclopedic
activity, and in this activity society is benefiting greatly.

However, there also needs to be someone, somewhere, pointing out (as Sir
Roger Penrose does in his books) that the Emperior has no Clothes, where the
Emperior is the artificial intelligence (and related) community.

Do you agree?

I think about the by-pass problem; and whether or not there is a way, as yet
not discovered, so that a computational emergent process produces a well
formed topic map... situated so that the scope issue is perfectly aligned
with contingencies that were not thought about by the developers of
resources used by the emergent computing process.

So the standard for a topic map would be preserved, but the process of
producing *some* situated topic maps would be developed in such a way as
small and situated enumerations, from a specific point of view (read scope),
are discovered by a user as the user uses the sytem.

The scope has to related to the issues of situatedness, yes?


http://www.ontologystream.com/prueitt/whitePapers/Situationedness.htm