[xtm-wg] Re: topic map complexity, and references

[Alexander Sigel <sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de>]

thanks for the recent discussion of TMs with a slant to the
indexing/librarian community, by glenda brown & murray altheim.

as an information scientist in knowledge organization with a certain
sympathy for TMs, i think i understand your concerns.
let me add some sketchy remarks (they became longer than i intended):

glenda had asked three important questions:

1. Do you know of good introductory material?
---------------------------------------------
   although we are now far better off than at xml europe 2000 in paris,
   this is still a desideratum. what i can offer is material about
   how i see a cross-fertilization between knowledge organization and
   TMs, not about TM concepts per se. murray mentioned jack park's upcoming
   book. if everything goes well, there will be a lengthy chapter by me
   on "topic maps in knowledge organization". but much more work is
   necessary.

2. May TMs suffer from more complex indexing models, like e.g. PRECIS did?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   rephrased: are more complex indexing models, expressed in TMs,
   more, or are they less effective than simpler indexing models,
   expressed in TMs? answer: it depends.
   this is a big, open research question, and one could say much about
   this. yes, they may suffer.

   in principle, the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle applies,
   i.e. keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler. if the requirements
   include to search for complicated concepts with complex interrelations,
   i see no other way. if not, it is a waste of resources.

   it is true that relational indexing never became very popular. e.g.
   the WRU system failed for several reasons, including that it was very
   costly, it was very difficult to reach consensus on which roles to
   assign, and it was awkward to use. but the problems of historical
   systems and that relational indexing is is seldomly used (one exception
   is BIOSIS), is _NO_ argument in principle against its potential.

   i interpret your question as follows: are TM proponents aware of
   work and failure with relational indexing, i.e. experiences about limits?
   answer: i am, but have not lost all hope. why?

   one might argue that the recent renaissance of relations in indexing
   (in AI, e.g. in conceptual graphs or for the Semantic Web), is due to
   a lack of historical knowledge of other branches of knowledge.
   in part, this is true. but in certain niches there is also the
   requirement for finer-grained semantical retrieval. where, e.g., you
   need to reliably search for process concepts (vorgangsbegriffe),
   you'll find nothing better than relational indicators (relationsindi-
   katoren) (cf. Fugmann).
   analytical thinking is in favour of relational indexing, where
   appropriate. i hold that there exist areas where the extra cost can
   pay off. this has to be determined in experimental settings.
   (i know of no retrieval test with TMs).
   there is also the hope that a richer ontology can better aid automated
   procedures employing this ontology, so it may even save money on mass
   data.

   to a certain extent i believe in the unique value of an intellectual,
   domain-oriented approach, complementing others: indexing is creating
   interpretations for (future) usage. it is necessary to analyze domains
   from the viewpoints of the discourse communities the indexing (the
   retrieval system) is targeted for. this will lead to insights about
   concepts and relations.

   it is true that relations introduce more chances for indexer
   "inconsistency". this is less a problem if we allow multiple
   interpretations (a "correct" indexing does not exist anyway, indexing
   theory/philosophy and epistemology tell).

   in sum: i think there exist application fields where relational
   indexing is of value, and implementing it with TMs, too. a sound
   knowledge about the state of the art in indexing and ontology
   engineering should methodologically guide against arbitrary linking.

3. Do domains exist where it may not be possible to adequately model
   their structure as TMs?
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   my feeling is that it is possible to model any intellectual indexing
   with TMs (as they are hospitable enough). whether this is natural
   is a different question. so this is no limitation of TMs. rather,
   the question is about (1) can/should sophisticated indexing express
   arbitrary complex domain structures? (2) to which degree is this
   necessary/helpful for effective retrieval?

   murray mentions that believing in universals was the problem, and
   that viewpoints through scoping (a kind of partitioning the knowledge
   base) were one solution, also allowing for mapping between concepts.
   i agree. steve pepper's "towards a general theory of scope" is a
   valuable first step, but much more is to be done.

   in practice the question will be, if complex knowledge models will
   aid users in finding what they need, or rather confuse and distract.
   however, this is in part a question of the GUI (e.g. context filtering).
   a complex model does not necessarily mean complex navigation.  

   i must admit that we don't have enough experience with sophisticated
   indexing of scientific matter in TMs yet. i know of no evaluation
   by library and information science or retrieval researchers.

   glenda, you did not provide an example of a potentially difficult
   domain. one might consider humanities and social sciences as more
   difficult to index than "hard sciences", but this is an open debate.
   i am currently working with viewpoints in TMs in a social sciences
   subdomain.
   
all the best
alex
--
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Sigel, M.A. sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de
Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, R&D
Lennéstr. 30, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
+49 228 2281 170 tel, +49 228 2281 120 fax
Homepage: http://index.bonn.iz-soz.de/~sigel/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

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

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