RE: [topicmaps-comment] Everchanging subjects [Re: Notionshaveexistence ...]

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

Thomas said:

"Everyone's understanding of everything, including words, constantly changes
and adjusts with learning and experience. "

***

and followed this statement with thoughts that point to where the
limitations of knowledge representation practice are.  I mean, we as a
community can not move the art of knowledge representation forward beyond
having to assume that things do not change.

The way that I see to manage this is the create a topic structure that is to
last only a short while, or that can be reused only when some degree of
approximation is acceptable.  Massive topic maps are then replaced with
machinery that creates emergent and small topic maps structure.. (looking
very much like any of the several small topic maps that perhaps some of us
have seen - but situated in a moment and context.)

If the creative force of human perception were to be involved in the
creation of a topic structure, then the topic structure might have
persistence within a period of time.  The problem is that topic maps are not
like natural language in that the formation of sentences occur very rapidly
and with little effort during human discourse.

There is also the essential element of emergence.  Natural language
expression emerges from the mind-body complex.  Topic maps are constructed
through great labor and in an artificial processes that has no element of
emergence as an essential part of the construction.

I have hoped that some of this community would look tat the Process
Compartment Hypothesis (Prueitt 1995) and

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm

and make some discussion about whether or not emergent computational
processes might be developed to produce contextually situated topic maps.