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

["Bryan Thompson" <bryan-pop@cog-tech.com>]

Yes, I agree.  However I feel we could address much of this 
continually re-emergent confusion if the XTM AG made specific 
recommendations concerning *how* the XTM (or the ISO standard) could 
be used, without modification to the specification, to encode 
knowledge modeling languages.

Everyone's initial response seems to be "Cool!" and then, "Oh -- we 
need probabilistic weights, etc. to handle knowledge representation.  
Please modify the standard."  The process will benefit from explicit 
examples of how these interests can be encompassed without explicit 
extensions to ISO (or XTM).

I would like to see such an example as one output of XTM-UCS (the use 
cases group).  While it need not make it into the XTM specification, 
it should make it into a FAQ on the TopicMaps.Org site.

-bryan

--- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, Peter Jones <peterj@w...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I posted on the matter of (a) a while back (text inserted below), 
and
> wholeheartedly agree with (b).
> 
> 
> <from the earlier posting: Grandfathered public topics [was: lazy
> processing...]>
> 
> >but we need some real basic stuff like simple logical expressions.
> 
> Following some postings to the list, I had (a revelation) and an 
off-list
> discussion with Steve N and Michel about this. Topic Maps (ISO 
13250)
> deliberately omit any logical stuff (e.g. operators and quantifiers,
> disjunction types, term equivalence and substitution rules, etc.) 
from the
> specification. This is because a Topic Map can (if you want)
present 
a set
> of denotations needed for the terms of a set of logical expressions 
in
> whatever format/syntax those are expressed. That way it provides a 
resource
> to existing syntaxes for logical expressions like Knowledge 
Interchange
> Format without reinventing the wheel. Clever, eh? 
> (I nearly fried my brain when I spotted that one.)
> 
> </>
> 
> 
> cheers
> Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wrightson, Ann [mailto:Ann.Wrightson@s...]
> Sent: 23 August 2000 07:09
> 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 t
> 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@e...
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@e...


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Log on and get the best long distance rates for your home 
or business. We’ll consolidate your services and provide 
you with one simple bill – ALL ONLINE!  Join beMANY! today.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8559/4/_/337252/_/967123188/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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