[topicmaps-comment] RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-artifact

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Rex,

Let me see if I can get a foot hold on this discussion regarding the mark up
(annotation) of human behavior with respect to Human Information
Interaction.

It appears to me that human mark up requires a type of ontology, and thus
has the normal and expected problems that ontology always has.  Do we select
certain concept, such as address, artifact and bodyLocation; and build from
there - adding new concepts?

Is there any other way to go about this process of producing an enumeration
of types?

I am not merely stringing you-all along, and I think that there is an
answer.  But the approach to the problem might need to take into account
"how" things come into being, and thus how the elements, that the ontology
refers to, form.

Elements (what ever these are called - "subjects" etc) of Topic Maps, XML
schema and RDF metadata tagging (or KIF for that matter) are specified
without the specification of a formative process that produces the elements.
(Am I wrong in some way about this claim?)

I know that various things are tried to get around this deficit.  But the
human brain does develop an enumeration of type and does participate in
natural language, individual cognition, and awareness.  How does this occur,
in the natural world with a human brain.

The predominance of the AI myth (that machine can experience thought) is a
barrier to us, because when we think through these issues of ontology
construction we are NOT reminding ourselves that computer science is not now
an natural science.  Herbert Simon called this the "Science of the
Artificial".

How we get the artificial constructs from logic (first order predicate
logic) and mathematics (data mining) to do what natural systems do, when the
artificial constructs have only a shadow of the natural world (see Roger
Penrose's book "Shadows of the Mind".)


Rex, I am interested in the Base Primary XML Schema, in this context;
because the name seems to be proper.  What we need is a small set of base
primary schema that gets filled in (somewhat similar to Schank's Frames with
a fixed number of slots (affordances) and each slot having a finite and open
set of values (fillers).  In this way the Schema becomes a constraint on the
formation of, and element in, an ontology.

What is wrong with using schema in this way?  The answer, is that the
industry practice is to use schema to designate documents (end products),
and here we suggest that the schema is a template related to a behavioral
expression (by a human).  (Again, am I wrong here in some way?)

My offering on this issues is at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm

this is just completed and addresses the topic maps standards community and
the Human mark up standards community.

_Dr. Paul Prueitt
OntologyStream Inc








-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:01 AM
To: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos); Rex Brooks;
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-artifact


Hi Manos.

I was thinking of attempting to build the Topic Map, XMLS and RDFS
separately, but simultaneously, as we go through this process of
examining and evaluating the xml schema elements. That is mostly
because the XML Schema is what we settled on pursuing long ago now.

Since it appears that it is going to proceed more slowly than I
thought as each element opens up arenas of discussion such as we have
seen in the first three elements: address, artifact and bodyLocation.
I don't expect to even attempt any kind of finality for any of these
elements in this first pass through the straw man schema. What I am
looking for is a first working draft level of understanding and
codification. That doesn't mean that we can't actually come up with a
working recommendation specification with it, just that it will
always be open to revision and extension.

Basically, what I am trying to do is to pull together some active
discussions and keep us moving forward, at least in the sense of
proceeding through a method of looking at what we have and what we
turn up in this pass. I'm hoping to inspire our subcommittees, me
included, to start looking more closely at what these application
areas really need in the Base Primary XML Schema and I am hoping we
can perhaps continue to pull in more interest, some of which I hope
will be interested in joining you in the RDF Schema effort, and as we
spoke about a while back, some of that interest may spring from the
Topic Maps effort.

I'm doing a lot of hoping here, but we have actually attracted a few
new participants lately, and I would like to maintain some momentum
through the summer vacation/conference season.

I have a thought that might help this. Could you arrange, maybe just
before and then after the Semantic Web Conference, a chat to discuss
what that activity is attempting?

We can hold it on your schedule, and I will be there regardless of
whether anyone else does. It might also be good for our folks to get
an idea of what a truly international effort actually entails, in
terms of real time collaboration. This is also an ongoing goal or
objective for me personally. Maybe someday we can actually get away
from an America-centric, or even Euro-centric viewpoint and achieve a
Human-centric viewpoint. When we were doing this kind of thing
through Sandy Ressler's About.com site for the Web 3D Consortium's
Content Development Working Group, there were times when we actually
had Australia, Europe, Hawaii, and both East and West Coast US live
simultaneously, so I know it is possible.

Anyway, I hope your classes finish well for you, and I hope to chat
with you again soon.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:36 PM +0300 5/24/02, Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>>   If I could get Manos to explore it as a way to build a Topic Map
>>of Associations for our xml elements, it would probably also be
>>useful for helping build an RDF Schema as we go along.
>
>
>Maybe, maybe not. IMHO, it would be better to build it in a familiar
>structure first; that would be RDF(S). Using a topic map may be a
>really good idea, but the overhead would probably supersede it's
>offerings at this point as far as I'm concerned.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>