[xtm-wg] Re: Structural constraints are extensions of equality

["Ronald Poell" <rapoell@notionsystem.com>]

Andrius,

Here are some general ideas I had when reading your mail on xtm-wg
and 
some of your articles.

When I am thinking, the thing that could be isolated and named a "an 
indivisible thought" is always about a particular item/topic/concept. 
The "thought" itself almost always concerns one or more 
remarks/reflections about some couple/triple/... of individual 
"indivisible thoughts".
But when I reconsider one of the "indivisible thoughts" in most cases 
they appear to be composed of other subthoughts that have 
associations/relationships to other items. And this is a never-ending 
story.

IMO the subdivision in Sequences, Hierarchies and Networks is correct 
but sequences, hierarchies and (sub) networks are always subpart of 
the overall network. A particular sequence or hierarchy is always 
relatively short compared to the networks they belong to.

One practical aspect of registering thoughts is that they only
express 
that part of my real reflections that seem to be "new". Most of my 
context, i.e. the information what for me is obvious, isn't
mentioned. 
This means that when I review that note sometime later I will fully 
understand what I mentioned. On the other hand, somebody else will
not 
be able to understand completely what I wrote down, as his 
context/knowledge will be different.
So if the purpose of writing down the thought is to be remembered by 
myself this works fine, but if the thought has to be communicated to 
somebody else the form/depth/explanations must be completely 
different. 

As for the conversion of structured thoughts between one tool and 
another I have one remark. I didn't came across a very important 
aspect of conversion in your papers.
When converting from a tool which let you express only partly
thoughts 
and the relationships between them (like theBrain with only one 
implicit parent-child relationship and n implicit links) to a tool 
which enables you to express more completely the thoughts (like one 
based on Topic Maps, or like Notion System based on something close
to 
a semantic network) you will not be able to supply the data necessary 
to reach the full power of the target tool.
The other way around (from the more complete to the lesser tool)
there 
should be no big problems.

This implicates that the intermediate format must be one allowing the 
data from the most complete tool to be expressed completely without 
any losses.

Friendly Greetings

Ronald Poell


 

--- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@m...> wrote:
> I wrote earlier about the work by the Minciu Sodas Laboratory to 
develop
> an import/export standard (as simple as a spreadsheet) for tools for
> organizing thoughts (such as TheBrain, www.thebrain.com, and
> MindManager, www.mindmanager.com) with emphasis on the kinds of
> structural constraints used.  We may describe this as a 
simplification
> (popularization?) of TopicMaps.  I share new ideas and appreciate 
your
> help in adding to the kinds of structures that I describe.  
> Andrius Kulikauskas
> ********************************
> 



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Download iPlanet Web Server, FastTrack Edition 4.1 for FREE,
and start publishing dynamic web pages today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7540/4/_/337252/_/965039766/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-

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

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