Re: [xtm-wg] Re : Topics, Subjects, Things

[John Robert Gardner <John.Robert.Gardner@east.sun.com>]

Greetings . . . following from Bernard's thread:

#Anyway, what I pick from Ann's answer is that it's easier for now to map
#the part of the real world implemented in computers, data bases, real
#networks ... than to map the concepts "in our minds".

It's an interesting question-- yet nonetheless, the success of the mapping for 
the "real world implemented . . ." depends on how transparently/intuitively this 
correlates with what we have in our minds . . .and there, as it were, lies the 
rub.  Cf. the various searches for terminological structure.  Matt West's 
article lead to some further digging what has turned up two possible zones of 
malleable and human-concept-to-real-world-concept mapping ontologies.

In the first case, his correlation in section 5.1.4 of Organisational levels 
with a conceptual association of sorts between Temporal 
Relationships/Associations (5.1.3.4) and States (5.1.3.5) allows for both 
process and class to classify as one entity, in my understanding, a way to think 
of his otherwise not overly-fleshed out 4D entities.

In a similar vein, then, consider the theory of ritual, for instance that of the 
processual nature of ritual entities advanced by Victor Turner (The Ritual 
Process) and given that specific terminology first by Keyes (1976) [cf. Deflem's 
paper on the web at (http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/soc/mdeflem/zturn.htm)].  
It is worth suggesting that in the notions of ritual we have both the capacity 
and specificity to represent the real world concepts in resonant human terms.  
Regardless the ontology, Turner and others' work reflects the dynamic of the 
ritual structure of relations and temporal association structures.  These, in 
turn leave artifacts which themselves evoke further relations, association, 
classes, and states.  This moves us past some of teh more overt limitations of, 
for instance, traditional UML class diagrams wherein changing associations and 
relations layer the procedure sometimes beyond usable interpretability.

In "real world terms" -- consider the ritual of software programming: there are 
chaotic and progressive ordering states which follow predictable progressions 
and iterations.  Even when there is variance, this variance--debugging, e.g., 
--is itself ritualized.  In South Asian Vedic terms, this would be the expiation 
rites of prayascitta.  The segue is warranted as Turner's work--while suggestive 
of useful terminological frontiers--is also fairly spartan and committed to a 
certain intrinsic view of language which leaves his work less suited to 
construction of ontologies.  

I suggest instead work done on the meaninglessness of ritual, by Fritz Staal, 
(article in Numen some years back "THe Meaninglessness of Ritual), as a 
conceptual framework within which to work.  Staal posited that, rather than 
meaning something in and of itself (e.g., and imitatable quantity of meaning, 
a.k.a. Skinner), it was itself a ritual, and as a meaningless ritual, language 
is a spatio-temporal association of states.  These are iterative and processual. 
 Much more consistent, then, with Chomsky's view on langauge and--at the same 
time--(hang on, I'm taking a tight turn to the primary topic of this list) more 
representative of the evolving structure of the Web.

# I can understand and must agree with that. OTOH, the "real chaotic Web" is
#anyway sort of good projection of the complexity of concepts and visions of
#the world of authors and users, so mapping the Web is more or less mapping
#the concepts. And maybe the only way to do it for now, a nice piece of a
#program to begin with anyway!

Yes! This is EXACTLY the problem space of ancient ritualists: faced with a 
chaos-- the world around them--of which some components had mappable concepts of 
varying complexity.

#But from my viewpoint, being good only at metaphysics and ontology, I take
#the challenge to start from scratch real world - people acting around
#themes with tools inside social dynamics - help them build an ontology of
#their action, clarify the concepts they use and implement it as a
#collectiveTM. 

I fully agree.  

ritualistically and respectfully,

john robert.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
John Robert Gardner
Enterprise Management Architecture Group
Sun Microsystems Inc.,
MailStop UBUR02-306			
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA  01803-0903		|  "Failure is not an option"
					|  
Ph. 781-442-0692			|  Eugene Crantz
Fax 781-442-1539			|  NASA
e-mail  john.robert.gardner@sun.com
-----------------------------------
http://vedavid.org/diss/
http://vedavid.org/xml/docs/


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/337252/_/972563321/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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