[xtm-wg] shared views of a community

["Paul Prueitt" <bcngroup@erols.com>]

Dear colleagues,


First a short story and then a long discussion.

***

Perhaps we all know that there is a natural barrier to programming tasks.
Programmers get on the outside of this barrier and then there is a barrier
to getting back. <smile>  It is just in the nature of the programming task.

The barrier is often something like forming a perception of why DOS still
has to be used to work with Java.  I finally (think that I have) figured
this out and then, even then, the launching of a small example program does
not seem to do anything - perhaps the need is to put code into a browser?
For me, my personal experience, is that it is just not possible to get this
information out of the many books on Java.  So I am stuck knowing a lot
about the nature of Java, except about how to configure the Windows / Java
environment to make ANYTHING (even the simple Hello world example) work.
<smile>  I have tried a hundred times to get started in Java, but each start
leads to a dead end.  Yet, the knowledge of how to start is likely something
that is a matter of some minutes for a knowledgeable Java programmer to
communicate to me - if only he or she knew why I have become confused.  I
have learn-ed Java helplessness, just as my university students in
mathematics have in regards to doing arithmetic.

This is like having lost something, looked everywhere, and now not looking
at where the lost items is at - because of the belief that "it" is not
there.  Everyone has experienced this, I assume.

***

So, this is just a personal story - but one with a moral that illustrates
the extreme difficulty non-computer scientists have with understanding the
actual and potential value in the topic map paradigm.  Actual value is very
high, but is so far limited to very structured environments typical of XML
with Resource Description Framework (a kind of AI - expert system extension
into the world of the Internet and data mining.)

***

Topic maps presents a barrier to the Newbie.  Philosophical, the OSI 1.0
standard (www.topicmaps.org) is VERY exciting since to seems to have a
philosophical depth that makes Topic Maps unique in two aspects:

1) a clear relationship to graph theory (not simply a tree - like in expert
systems) but to simple non-tree graph representation of concepts and
relationships between concepts and thus a bridge to useful things like mind
maps and value chains - things understood in the business world.
2) a delineation between addressable subjects (things that live in the
computer world) and non-addressable subjects (things that live in the
non-computer world - like my grandmother). This delineation follows a school
of thought contributed to by leading philosophers and thinkers such as R.
Rosen, L. Wittgenstein and C. S. Peirce.

Those of us that want to apply the topic map paradigm to knowledge
elicitation and knowledge sharing tasks have a very hard time taking the
very first steps into building and using topic maps and the topic map
concepts.  Simple examples designed to help the Newbie are absent.  Simple
tools to allow naive experimentation are absent.  Moreover, those who are
the leadership are occupied trying to make a living and not really able to
give of their personal time.  So economic issues are present.

Topic maps may simply be esoteric with actual uses only in specific
contexts, but not capable of facilitation of common knowledge sharing
between individuals who are not dedicated computer scientists.  Doug Lenat's
experiment with representational technology for encoding the common sense of
living perception faces a similar limitation, perhaps (the jury is still
out.)  (note: IMO, the Lenat experiment will have many valuable "lessons
learned".)

The value of topic maps is huge even if NOT capable of facilitation of
common knowledge sharing between individuals.

We simply do not know if topic maps are the right paradigm.  But without the
core Topic Maps group engaging members of communities outside the current
topic map community, then the paradigm will not be tested as a common
knowledge processing paradigm.

Perhaps some thought is needed regarding whether or not time should be used
testing the paradigm in new ways.  We need economic resources to fund tests,
and we need those who can contribute personal time.  Jack Parks has some
open source java tools (that I have not been able to figure out how to use.)
see:  http://nexist.sourceforge.net   Perhaps someone here knows java well
enough to show the rest of us what Jack's tool sets do and how they
function.  Lars Marius Garshol and W.M. Jaworski clearly have an interest in
an applied TM project that breaks new ground.  Professor Jaworski has clear
insights into the problem of opening up a human control interface to Topic
Map (or more generally cognitive graph (Sowa - Peirce - Pospelov) semiotics
systems.  Kal Ahmed has helped me understand the scope of the problem we
face in getting topic map tools in use by non-computer scientists.

The community of practice (Com-Prac@yahoogroups.com ) e-forum has
individuals who can easily develop mid to long term value propositions for a
private investment in such a project.  Either the BCNGroup (a not for
profit) or the OntologyStream can provide a business structure around such a
project - to serve an open source project - not to just make money.

However, the relationship of topic maps to cognitive maps, mind maps, value
chains, cognitive graphs, etc can not be explored without the Topic Map
community making an effort to include other communities.  This effort needs
funding to work, as these individuals have already donated more of their
personal time that is healthy.

***

What needs to be overcome?:

Members a different community are working with notions of self and community
image, and in this work it is possible to talk about how various communities
form a structural coupling (to use the terms of art in social-biology -
Verala and Maturana invented) that supports the communities stability within
an environment.

Intra-community interaction is then the "subject of investigation".

One of the results of working out a language for these notions is to present
a general systems perspective on group activity.  The notions are not so
difficult to understand, but it does become controversial.  The language
does help one understand the nature of communities of practice and the
nature of knowledge sharing within communities.

When someone pushes on the shared views of a community, the topic map
community, for example; then there is sometimes the uncovering of truths
about the communities shared views that are not going to be easily accepted
by the community.  Particularly in the case where the task engaged by the
community is one that is largely unsolved.

Creating a knowledge sharing standard for mediation of knowledge within
virtual communities and involving computational resources is a largely
unsolved task.  This is not purely a task involving computer science.  Yet
there is some high degree of dedication, within the topic maps community, to
the notion to computer science is all that is needed to apply topic maps to
the task.  There are some who, along with me, wish that this dedication
would soften just a bit so that the paradigm could be tested in a less
structured application space (E-business - for example).

***

What can be done?:

Perhaps initial comments could be sent to Com-Prac since this is the
community where new areas of application of the Topic map paradigm might be
made.  Then a separate forum can be created if we decide to move forward.

I am sure that this discussion is NOT of interest to everyone.  So perhaps a
new forum will be created - to bring together a intra community discussion
and perhaps to define a project where-by some topic map tools are shown to
non-computer scientists who have an interest in where topic maps fit as a
knowledge sharing technology.



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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/