humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] Notes on Process, Stratified Complexity,Knowledge Management, Topic Maps and Ontology
- From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
- To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:51:52 -0700
Title: Notes on Process, Stratified Complexity, Knowledge
Man
Hi Everyone,
I wanted to post a few notes about Knowledge Management, Topic
Maps and Ontology because in the course of exploring the element,
channel, we ran right into the divide between content and processing
in computing.
Arguably the separation of content from processing instructions,
which is central to the way XML is envisioned to work into the future
is necessary. This allegedly allows for such things as the Human
Markup Language specs we are working on because <facetious>
we don't have to worry our pretty little content heads over the nuts
and bolts of the mechanics underlying the use of our pretty little
vocabularies.</facetious> In other words, we are not supposed to
need to look under the hood and see how it works, as opposed to how it
is supposed to work.
Fortunately, we have Len, who spends a lot of time doing just
that on the xml-dev list, which I suggest you follow even though it is
not by any means necessary. The point I am making is that we really DO
have to look under the hood from time to time and make sure that what
we think we are doing is what in fact is occurring. That's a little
less important now that it will be a few years from now once Web
Services, Topic Maps, UBL and HumanMarkup, etc, have some mileage
under their metaphorical belts.
To me the concepts of Stratified Complexity, Situatedness, and
the rest of children that have grown out of Complex Adaptive Systems
are pretty self-evident and also pretty thoroughly applicable to our
work, as far as they go. I'm not really interested in the debates
within these schools of thought, I just happily take what seems
appropriate to me, and leave the rest--which is all of our
prerogatives.
While Kurt, David, Rob, Manos, Paul and Sylvia (whom I name
because I have some slight familiarity with their views) might all
have differences of opinions with me and each other in regard to
details, I suspect we all agree that the structural,
organizational tenets or principles that the masses of data within
most given Knowledge Management Topics or Topic Areas that can be
mapped with Topic Maps (or will be able to be so mapped at some point
soon now) yield are the key tools for making those fields
useful. In my opinion it is in the ability of RDF to usefully extract
the datasets from these fields that we will want and need to use in
HumanMarkup. That is what I see as the the mechanics under the hood,
so to speak that will make our work useful out there in the world at
large.
For myself, because I am not a scientist, but an artist with some
rather odd predilections for science and technology, I prefer to stay
in the realm of the general, so you don't see me getting into the
details of this very often. So I wanted to say that I think we would
benefit from adopting, and adapting, as David has done, the DAML-OIL
set of Ontologies for our use, to be added to and amended as our
secondary schemata require.
For an evaluation of DAML-OIL:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html
For a presentation about DAML-OIL:
www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Slides/daml-pi-feb-01.pdf
You're all adept at searching on your own, so I won't re-refer to
the horrocks paper we studied earlier on when I went and did that 300+
hours of work on our own <facetious>little /facetious>
HM.frameworks:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup/documents/HM.frameworks.txt
A Last Note: I suggested to Philip Rossomando that RDF is more
amenable to formulating an explicit grammar from the implicit grammar
which our Primary Base Schema will inevitably contain. And I suggested
to him that he contact Manos about working with Manos on that area
with special attention to following the Topic Maps work that is also
on-going... I suggest the same to all who want to make a contribution
in that area. This is allied to but neither dependent on, nor
envisioned as part of, a possible High-Level Ontological Framework
Subcommittee, or however it gets named if there is sufficient interest
to form it. That, I would suggest, should concern itself with
HOW to use both the XML and RDF Base Schemata for the applications,
the identification of which, I would also suggest, should be a first
priority of such a subcommittee.
Ciao,
Rex
P.S. I also tend to ignore dramatic gestures by volatile
personalities. In the long term, the work is what counts, not who does
it or how it gets done or who claims credit for it.
--
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC