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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Paul,

I'll just take this point by point.

At 11:51 AM -0400 5/24/02, paul wrote:
>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?

In essence, yes. However, it isn't that the concepts are new, they 
need to derive from or be extended from the base elements to 
correspond to the application-specific use, which is to say to 
correspond to the concepts already in use in specific areas if such 
concepts exist. Otherwise they would be new, in the sense of not 
having existed previously.

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

I don't know. I'm not precluding it.

>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.

Granted.

>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?)

That looks correct to me.

>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.

This is where I might part company with you, but not in the sense of 
refuting the concept here, just not being ready to adopt that model, 
whatever it turns out to be.

>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".

I think our folks don't subscribe to that myth. At least no one has 
yet suggested it.

>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.

I'd say we were in synch on that. However, I don't speak for everyone 
in that regard, nor do I ever, however I might sound.

>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?)

There is nothing wrong with using a schema this way that I know of. 
Otherwise we wouldn't be setting out to construct it that way. 
However, I accept the necessity of making it useful to those other 
uses at the same time without specifically making an issue of it to 
those who need to use it that way. My thought is that if we take care 
to construct the vocabulary in a way that satisfies the range of uses 
to which it is aimed, then having it operate as an efficient ontology 
is a fairly unmitigated benefit. I try not to advertise it that way, 
though, simply because I want there to be a comfort level for using 
it in practical terms. Trying to explain the long range benefits of a 
consistent ontology has humbled me into letting that effort slide. 
Eyes glazed over when I tried. So, while doing it that way, I am 
trying to focus on more immediate and tangible benefits.

My thought is that if individual end-users of the web understand that 
there is a tangible benefit from managing their own personalization 
profiles (using HumaMarkup whether they are aware of it or not) in 
the sense that applications which use HumanMarkup are able to adapt 
to them, they will use the applications that do that better, and an 
otherwise easily misused marketplace can begin to serve us better.

That is my personal strategy, and it informs the tactics I use, 
including the attempt to help the adoption of Topic Maps as a better 
way to organize the accessibility of information than say, UDDI, WSDL 
et al. That is also why I am smack in the middle of the Web Services 
for Interactive Applications TC. I will refrain from expressing my 
frustration and exasperation, and you're all very welcome, 
but...sheesh, talk about tunnel vision...

I look forward to reading your work below.

>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
>


Thanks,
Rex

>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----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>


--