[topicmaps-comment] regarding the conveyance of private knowledge

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

I try not to "get in my own way" in conveying my message.  Over the last two
years, I have made lots of errors as I learned how to address this
**reductionism in science funding issue** in public.  Financially I have, in
fact, done ok, but the science of knowledge and the development of knowledge
technologies has not done very well at all.  Yet.

So the investigation of this issue should be a subject of a well organized
internal community of scientists and technologists.  (In my opinion.)
Without correcting the funding process, we simply will not be able to
develop a stratified technology where memory (the categorical abstraction of
invariant patterns in spaces of existing addressable subjects) is encoded as
invariance (SLIP/CLIP atoms) and one has a top down expectation
(anticipation) derived from category theory (eventCompounds - via Peircean
graphs).

The formative part (the middle layer of a tri-level machine architecture) is
the ontology and this formative ontology has a similarity to the nature of
the mental event.. has understood rather fully by cognitive neuroscience of
memory, awareness and anticipation - such as from Pribram, Edelman, of
Tulving's. etc.


The issue is the means by which funding is NOT delivered to those of us who
could make a positive contribution of greater value to society... if the
funding was not controlled systematically in such a fashion as to
systematically exclude the notion of human knowledge being properly defined.

It is our society that is the loser in this equation.  The proper science
and technology community can make the profitable ROI, that is not the issue.
The issue is in overcoming reductionism in IT thought and theory (the strong
AI Dream.)  Yes?

We are trying to define the curriculum for PhD programs in Knowledge
Sciences, but the literatures all point to very controversial experimental
and theoretical work.

The message is the same, independent of the life paths of each of us.  Many
of the folks in the topic maps community work hard and most of us struggle
with the funding issue.

The BCNGroup Charter is a means to achieve a "flip" where by the science
might have a even hand in funding decisions ...  in the area of the new
knowledge technologies...  such as TM should be.  So a BCNGroup membership
drive might be the next step.  The BCNGroup has not yet been involved in any
financial transaction.. it is waiting for a community to arise.


Many of the workers in knowledge technologies have the courtesy not to
burden others with the
internal details of their business and their personal lives (assuming
these are different).  This is a good community.

What I think that I am doing is not imposing knowledge that I struggle but
rather knowledge that we all struggle with this funding issues.. and that a
general systems analysis provides ontology for understanding what is
happening to the TM standards process that would make the notion that TM and
XML with RDF should be interchangeable?

The proposal before us is to understand how we scientists and technologists
can gain control over the funding process AS A COMMUNITY so that we do not
have to put up with this from one decade to the next.


But I agree that I need to more fully separate my private funding issue with
the community issue.

Thank you for the comments.