RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic Maps.. .)

["Wrightson, Ann" <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>]

Eric....

The main reason I was unspecific was that from the presentations I heard, I
didn't think that *in the context of an XML conference*, anyone had actually
spoken out of turn; also because of the impression I had that the annoyance
of the folks concerned had built up over the session rather than being
caused by any one speaker. "The problem" if you like was the sensitivities
of the KE folks! - in particular, "the problem" was their interpretation as
technical terms, and so as specific technical claims of what Topic Maps
could "provide", some words and phrases which I guess were intended as more
general descriptions (& eye-openers for XML-folks) of the potential uses of
Topic Maps. (For example, I remember one forceful statement that a bunch of
associations and instances on a diagram plus some informal typing didn't
amount to a "semantic network" - and that such a thing would never pass
review in any of "their" conferences - which last may even be the central
underlying emotional point.)

The particular phrases/words which I believe from that experience that we
need to use with due care are:
- semantic net or network
- knowledge model
- inference (especially the difference between being capable of supporting
inference, and being a sufficient agent or means of inference in itself)

I should also say that I believe many of us are already being careful and
exact... and that this is not the first time I've seen the re-purposing of
words & phrases for precise uses in computer science leading to
misunderstandings.

Does this answer?

Cheers

Ann W.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Freese [mailto:eric@isogen.com]
> Sent: 23 August 2000 15:31
> To: XTM Working Group
> Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic
> Maps...)
> 
> 
> Ann:
> 
> Perhaps you could illuminate us with what claims caused these 
> people so much
> distress.  As one of the speakers in that session, I would 
> appreciate the
> feedback.
> 
> My paper was meant to start people thinking in the direction 
> that topic maps
> might be able to be used to interchange knowledge bases.  I 
> also wanted to
> demonstrate that it was, in fact, possible to build (simple) 
> knowledge bases
> from topic map information.  I would love the opportunity to 
> work with the
> knowledge engineering community so investigate this further.
> 
> Eric
> 
> <!-- ****************************************************************
> Eric Freese                                    Email: eric@isogen.com
> Director - Professional Services - Midwest     Voice:    651 636 9180
> ISOGEN International/DataChannel               Fax:      651 636 9191
> 1611 West County Road B - Suite 204            WWW:    www.isogen.com
> St. Paul, MN 55113                                www.datachannel.com
> ***************************************************************** -->
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wrightson, Ann [mailto:Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 1:09 AM
> > To: 'xtm-wg@egroups.com'
> > Subject: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and 
> Topic Maps...)
> >
> >
> > Hi folks...
> >
> > I don't know if you discussed this at all in Montreal, but I am very
> > concerned that XTM should encourage/facilitate good working-with the
> > long-standing academic knowledge-engineering community by
> > a) being (very) moderate and realistic in its claims for XTM *by
> > itself* as
> > a knowledge modelling technique - XTM's main strength could 
> well be in
> > providing the "hooks" which enable the wide range of 
> established knowledge
> > modelling techniques to link to Web resources, and also in
> > providing simple
> > exchangeable *static* representations of (some) such models;
> > b) working with folks who have done eg semantic modelling for
> > years, rather
> > than trying to (re)invent ways of doing it without the 
> benefit of that
> > experience.
> >
> > This concern is based on back-of-room conversations at XML 
> Europe, where I
> > found myself trying to bring some experienced knowledge engineers
> > "back down
> > off the ceiling", and into a more realistically 
> appreciative frame of mind
> > regarding Topic Maps, after some rash claims from the podium...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ann W.
> >
> > 
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------<e|-
> Need EDA tools on a short term or peak load basis?
> Take a free 7 day trial!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/8464/4/_/337252/_/967041084/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------|e>-
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Test your WML code with our
Online WAP Testing Tool at
http://click.egroups.com/1/7799/4/_/337252/_/967109285/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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