[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] reification
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 4:29 AM
> To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Digest Number 206
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 7 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. relinquishing membership
> From: Peter Jones <peterj@wrox.com>
> 2. RE: relinquishing membership
> From: "Eric Freese" <eric@isogen.com>
> 3. Yahoo or egroups
> From: "Paul Prueitt" <beadmaster@ontologyStream.com>
> 4. Reification - why it came back in the CM
> From: "Bernard Vatant" <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>
> 5. Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
> From: David Holliday <dholliday007@sprintmail.com>
> 6. Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
> From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
> 7. Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
> From: David Holliday <dholliday007@sprintmail.com>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:46:50 -0000
> From: Peter Jones <peterj@wrox.com>
> Subject: relinquishing membership
>
> For personal reasons (unrelated to xtm activity) I am relinquishing my
> participating membership status.
>
> Peter
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:35:45 -0600
> From: "Eric Freese" <eric@isogen.com>
> Subject: RE: relinquishing membership
>
> Peter:
>
> Sorry to see this. Will you still be attending meetings
> periodicly? Do you
> know if Wrox wishes to maintain a participating member slot? If so, who
> would that be? They would need to go through the approval
> process mentioned
> in the charter (para 3.5.5).
>
> 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: Peter Jones [mailto:peterj@wrox.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:47 AM
> > To: 'xtm-wg@egroups.com'
> > Subject: [xtm-wg] relinquishing membership
> >
> >
> > For personal reasons (unrelated to xtm activity) I am relinquishing my
> > participating membership status.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> > xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:00:52 -0500
> From: "Paul Prueitt" <beadmaster@ontologyStream.com>
> Subject: Yahoo or egroups
>
> Has the egroups system been changed to a yahoogroups system? Did I miss
> something?
>
> There seems to be a disconnect, and I am unregestered somehow as moderator
> of the ontologyStream forum - which we just started - I also seem
> to not be
> subscribed, there is a new interface at the egroups sites - which are now
> yahoo sites.
>
> I am not subscribed at these sites even though I still seem to be able to
> post and I am receiving posts.
>
> Moreover, there seems to be a great deal of personal information that the
> "system" is do only asking for but demanding..
>
> No longer is there privacy rights?
>
> I do not understand completely, but perhaps what will now happen
> is that the
> work that was being done is now going to be owned by Yahoo or
> whom ever and
> now spamming and advertizements will flood by e-mail inbox?
>
> Is this what is happening.
>
> Most of those whom I wished to bring into a on-line community has
> even less
> tolerance for this type of implosition of commerical interests.
>
> Has the system has suddenly become less useful and more burdensome?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:16:14 +0100
> From: "Bernard Vatant" <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: Reification - why it came back in the CM
>
> Following some exchanges on that subject between members of the "Paris CM
> subgroup", I second Steve P. suggesting to bring it back to the public
> forum.
>
> I'll try to explain for those who were not in the CM discussion in Paris
> why and how "reification" was brought back.
>
> The very meaning given for that word * in XTM scope* is very simple : it's
> the process through which a Topic is created.
> Before reification, there is "something", addressable or not, resource or
> not, inside or outside the system, inside or outside the Topic Map itself,
> candidate to be a good subject - like *any* thing whatsoever.
> After reification, you have a brand new Topic in the system, of which the
> above "something" is the subject.
> No more. That's dreadly simple. If somebody claims it can't be
> that simple,
> that it's a very more subtle concept I widely misunderstood,
> please explain
> to me where I missed the point.
>
> This very action of creating a Topic is a fundamental process,
> whether it's
> made by an human author, creating the Topic "from scratch", or a system
> process, for instance creating a Topic out of any association in
> the TM, or
> any data in a data base etc.
> Given this process is a basic concept, it has to be pointed to and given a
> name, if only to show that Topics don't exist to begin with - as such - in
> the middle of nowhere, but only subjects are there, which have to be "made
> real", that is processed into definite computable objects of a definite
> type.
>
> Well, why the choice of "reification" ? Because it's the very meaning of
> the word : make something "real" for the system, in the sense it
> can handle
> it, compute it, merge it etc ... What other word would fit :
> "topicization"
> ? Gads ! Other ideas ?
>
> Another debate :
> RDF uses it. OK. with another meaning. OK. That point was considered too.
> What was said is that reification defined in XTM scope and reification
> defined in RDF scope could be considered later as subtypes of a more
> general class of process, which, IMO, could be defined by something like
> the following :
>
> "Reification is a process through which a computable/addressable
> object - a
> resource - is created in a system, as a proxy for a non
> computable/addressable object"
>
> This definition is a "relative" one, meaning by that the definition of
> addressable/computable depends on the system and the nature of the objects
> it is able to handle. But my hunch is it fits both RDF and XTM particular
> "reification(s)". Maybe some RDF guy around there coud tell if that makes
> sense or not.
>
> Well ... that was my 0.02 Euros for the "Grand Semantic Unification" <:o)
>
> Bernard
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Bernard Vatant
> bernard@universimmedia.com
> www.universimmedia.com
> "Building Knowledge"
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:04:11 -0800
> From: David Holliday <dholliday007@sprintmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
>
> Sorry, our president thinks euros are some sort of cheap car.
>
> "reification" is both right and proper being correct in nature
> AND fundamental.
>
> I'm glad I've unsubscribed from this group; my prevous mistake
> was assuming the group was worthwhile.
>
> Go create your grammer, I've got real big problems to tackle; now.
>
> -David
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:33:41 -0800
> From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
> Subject: Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
>
> David Holliday wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, our president thinks euros are some sort of cheap car.
> >
> > "reification" is both right and proper being correct in nature AND
> > fundamental.
>
> And your point is that the *concept* of reification is correct?
>
> We distinctly avoided using the term because it was ambiguously
> defined; ie., that the various communities that use the term all
> have varying definitions of it. Being "correct in nature AND
> fundamental" is not the issue. Correct in nature and fundamental
> in what context? As has been pointed out, reification in XTM and
> in RDF are two different ideas. And reification according to Gabel
> ("False Consciousness: an essay on reification") is yet another.
>
> > I'm glad I've unsubscribed from this group; my prevous mistake was
> > assuming the group was worthwhile.
> >
> > Go create your grammer, I've got real big problems to tackle; now.
>
> Well, if you're going to be rude and unprofessional about it, then I
> guess we should be glad you're leaving, or going, or already gone.
> (oh, since we're being peevish, might you spell 'grammar' correctly,
> and use an adverb rather than an adjective? Swap comma for semicolon?)
>
> For the record (if this were in question), this group is comprised
> of some of the most highly-qualified people in the industry, and is
> on track for delivering an XTM specification faster than probably any
> other standards body (compared with ISO, the W3C, IETF, etc.) We've
> gone from a completed ISO 13250 specification to creating a new
> organization and delivering a completely new XTM 1.0 spec in about
> one year. That's lightning fast for a standards group, especially one
> that didn't exist a year ago.
>
> If you don't have the patience to wait around while we finish our work,
> that's really your problem, not ours. Go tackle your real big problems.
>
> Murray
>
> ..................................................................
> .........
> Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey
<mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025
In the evening
The rice leaves in the garden
Rustle in the autumn wind
That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:56:39 -0800
From: David Holliday <dholliday007@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reification - why it came back in the CM
Argue, as you wish.
You're very good.
What is the common goal?
I see no other.
-David
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980604719/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC