RE: [xtm-wg] Topics, Subjects, Things ( XTM-CMS)

[Daniel Rivers-Moore <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>]

Reading Bernard's comments, I believe that I too am very much in agreement
with Bernard. As I said in the minutes, we need to develop appropriate prose
to explain the diagram of the "two chasms" adequately. What I put down in
the minutes (without even a picture to support it!) was definitely
inadequate to convey the essence of our discussion and thinking.

I believe we are in harmony with Bernard at the deep level of our thinking.
The issue is how to exteriorise that part of the thinking that is relevant
and helpful at this stage.

I look forward to Bernard's comments when we deliver a fuller description of
this aspect of the CMS's thinking.

Best regards

Daniel 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wrightson, Ann [mailto:Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk]
Sent: 25 October 2000 11:29
To: 'xtm-wg@egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Topics, Subjects, Things ( XTM-CMS)


Whilst in principle I agree with Bernard, we are in fact working 
- in a very limited timescale
- with artefacts (topic maps) which are NOT in the mind
- with artefacts (topic maps) which are moreover incapable of addressing
directly anything outside themselves other than "resources" which are not in
the mind either. 

I saw the "big picture" we discussed in CMS as clarifying that point, at
least, and making it clear that the relationships between the
things-in-the-mind, and the resources acting as surrogates for them in a
topic map, - however fascinating - had to be out of scope for XTM, if we are
to complete our task. 

When we ge widespread adoption, & various of us are designing topic maps for
large/difficult applications, I am sure that we will be drawing on a range
of perspectives and methodologies for designing relevant/useful concept
structures - and that that experience will give rise to another order of
debate altogether about TM design techniques & conceptual modelling. I look
forward to it...

Cheers

Ann W.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard VATANT [mailto:b.vatant@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: 25 October 2000 10:50
> To: Daniel Rivers-Moore; Jean DELAHOUSSE; xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> Cc: Jack Park; Mary Keller
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Topics, Subjects, Things ( XTM-CMS)
> 
> 
> Comments on the Swindon minutes, from a "completely external 
> viewpoint":
> 
> Daniel wrote :
> 
> < On the left of the picture are the Subjects. These are in a 
> human mind.
> In the middle of the picture is the Topic Map. This is in the 
> computer.
> On the right of the picture is the Real World and the Things 
> it contains >
> 
> I develop elsewhere the viewpoint that trying to map "Things 
> of the Real
> World" is a questionable approach, and that splitting the 
> real world in
> "things" to represent and operate on it is the first and most 
> important
> conceptual work, both personal (inside our brain or "mind") and
> intersubjective. Hence "things" are not given out there, 
> their definition
> emerge from an intersubjective agreement process, pushed by 
> the fact we
> need these collective definitions for communication and action. (see
> various exchanges on "nature of things")
> We cannot map or implement or even think about anything else 
> than symbolic
> representations, the so-called "subjects". I prefer the word 
> "concepts",
> because it refers to some mental and social building activity, whereas
> "subjects" looks more like metaphysical abstractions sitting 
> for eternity
> in the middle of nowhere.
> So I would consider the focus should be on : how do we map a given
> organisation of "concepts" ?  That's what TM are all about as 
> I understand
> them.
> 
> In that approach, and linked to the question of closure, I 
> tend to think
> that we should seek strictly one-to-one correspondance 
> between concepts and
> topics (in a given context), assuming that an association is a topic.
> (Seems to me, BTW, concerning that last point in the 
> ontologies I'm working
> on at the moment, the main types of topics can easily define 
> the main types
> of associations, if we consider that in any association, a 
> topic plays an
> "associating role".)
> 
> So we'd have some clarification in the debate about TM and ontologies.
> 
> Building ontologies deals with real world, it's the somehow 
> mysterious and
> complex realm of intersubjective agreement, natural languages 
> and contexts
> mentioned above. TM standards have not much to do there, 
> except maybe give
> some more intellectual tools to help in that neverending 
> collaborative and
> social work, hard to manage like anything in the real world.
> 
> The TM work should be after that first stage, the mapping of 
> the concepts
> structure, translation of natural language concepts in 
> computer-language.
> Confusing the two stages so defined will result in 
> neverending mismatches.
> 
> 
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor 
> -------------------------~-~>
> eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/337252/_/972467765/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 


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 -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/337252/_/972471008/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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