[topicmaps-comment] standards

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

One can make the argument, and be listened too, that standardization
processes will not be responsible for the production of the next operating
system for the Internet; or more generally the next generation of computer
science.

The same argument can be made that some somewhat random selection, of a
single person's thinking on how things ought to be, will be adopted as the
new computer science.  This will appear as an historical accident - much
like the selection of DOS as the ubiquitous disk operating system.

Several of the individuals whom I interact have a way of thinking and
preliminary work that could be the One selected.  (Sounds like the movie
"Matrix".)

What I think I know is that the protection of the underlying algorithms,
process models and data structures is essential to the stability of any
selection of one person's way of thinking.  This is Capitalism 101.

A standard is involved in forming community consensus, but fails to produce
high value due to extensive compromising and due to the lowest common
denominator (reductionism in this case) pulling the original thought off
course (as has been done with Topic Maps).  This is Democracy 101.

Let me be clear here.  The TM standard is valuable to the TM community since
the standards process is designed to provide value to the forming community.
However, the deep innovation is lost in exactly those places where the
fundamental notion of knowledge representation was at - specifically in the
notion that a distinction must be made between what is in the computer and
what is not in the computer.  Rather than lead the community into the
notions of knowledge perception and synthetic language, the standardization
process leads to the reduction of Topic Maps to Resource Description
Framework.

A single person's mind will produce arbitrary decisions in regard to things
that can be patented if treated early.  The problem here is very often
greed, and the attempt to get all of the value from a way of thought to flow
to the one person.  The over control and the business model then removes the
innovation from contention.

So there is general systems theory that one can use to think about these
issues.

One of the most important aspects of this general system analysis is that
fact that there are many original thinkers who can produce the basis for a
standardization process (which the community then reduces in value); or who
can produce the basis for patents and IP protection (which can hold the
value of the innovation artificially away from the market that needs the
innovation.)

A mechanism for disclosing and holding IP for a small community is needed to
address the general system constrants that hold back the development of
knowledge technology.