[xtm-wg] Re: Structural link types

[Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@ms.lt>]

Hi,
    Thank you to Ann Wrightson and Ronald Poell for your thoughtful
responses to my letter on structural link types.
    I am still absorbing them, but I want to reply to Ann's comment:

"I don't think has been looked at more deeply. A formal/mathematical
analysis of the properties of associations, type
hierarchies etc within topic maps would indeed be useful - any
volunteers?"

I volunteer!  I am just curious, why has this not done before? 
Semantics seems like such a difficult problem with so much attention. 
Why no interest in getting the structural issues out of the way?

I liked Ronald's comment:

"There will be fewer instructions necessary on how to handle structured
links then the ones needed for handling 
semantic links. So the structural links seem to be a good solution. But
as our view on the world grows (semantic network) quite quickly 
we encounter problems with the associations/links between topics.
A simple example might illustrate this. In classical animal and plant 
classification we use the Linnée classification (Order, Family, 
Genus, Species) but in modern classification we use the concept of 
clades (based upon genetic characteristics). Both tree structures 
would have a structural link "belongs to". But what happens if you 
mix them without making the semantic distinction? You will end up 
with and network of loops with a lot of "contradictory" information."

That's a great illustration of the idea that we may have a certain kind
of structure in mind (for example, a tree-like evolution) that may
ultimately break down (upon discovering ways in which genes "hop" across
species).  And this does leads to "contradictory" information.  But I am
starting to realize that this is the kind of information that is most
interesting to model - especially when it is the contradiction of our
own thoughts! (and the concern of our laboratory is to help people who
want to model their own thoughts).

For example, Socrates was famous for his question-driven dialogues,
where his discussant might intend that each answer lead away in a
sequence, but in the end they might just come back in a circle to the
thesis from which Socrates started.  What I mean to say is that, we may
intend - linking locally - that our thoughts be related in sequence, but
globally it may turn out that they form a circle.  This does not
diminish our sequential intent, but rather shows us something helpful
about our thinking.  In order to notice this, though, it is most
important that with each link we record our structural intent. 
Alternatively, we may as authors choose to work in a uniform software
environment, such as the directed ("child-parent", sic) and nondirected
("jump") networks of TheBrain, www.thebrain.com, or the radial tree of
MindManager, www.mindmanager.com

In fact, TheBrain plays with this by defining a child-parent
relationship (suggesting hierarchy) but extending it by saying that:
1) a parent can have many children
2) a child can have many parents
3) there can be cycles!
Which is to say, it is a directed network (with 2-cycles prohibited, or
rather, replaced with a non-directed network of "jumps").  So TheBrain
may be used with various intents: creating a sequence, or tree, or
network, and furthermore, these intents need not be followed (but can be
studied!)

I'll write more about our laboratory's plans regarding this in a
separate letter.

Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+370 (2) 60-67-38



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create professional forms and interactive web pages in less time 
with Mozquito(tm) technology.
Form the Web today - visit:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6342/4/_/337252/_/963964456/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com