[topicmapmail] Summary to date of "context" and "bottom up"

[Jack Park]

From: Bernard VATANT <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>
> <JP>
> I have name-tagged all the posts in this series for the following reason:
> the posts illustrate a collaborative process in progress.  Along the way,
> we
> see chuncks of agreement, and chunks of disagreement.  Where we need to go
> from here is toward convergence.  IMHO, we do not yet have enough body
mass
> involved to get there.  I am wondering if we shouldn't copy this post into
> other groups, e.g. Standard Upper Ontology, the PORT list, and others, as
a
> means of opening up the meme pool.  For myself, I am beginning to imagine
> an
> ontology growing out of this thread, one that encodes all arguements, and
> that enables the search for convergence.
> </JP>
>
> <BV>
> Very interesting initiative, Jack, from a technical viewpoint.
> OTOH, the "need for convergence" is something I wonder about.
> I figure that is the way many things work in the web community ( I really
> don't know, after what Martin wrote, if I may use the word community at
> all ) I read with more attention the W3C homepage and understand that is
> the way they do it : seeking unformally for a consensus, a convergence.
> I'm not used, given my cultural background, to that : I have to know where
> is the power in a community, and how it's distributed. Who sets the rules
> (legislature), what are the rights and duties of every actor. What are the
> decision processes and so on.
> You say "we" need a convergence. I ask the you the same question I
> addressed Martin previously.
> What do you mean by "we" ?
> </BV>
<JP>
*We* is a big word.  I imagine that *we* will be several groups
(communities, etc)--a set of communities as Martin Bryan pointed out. I
further imagine that this means that any particular *public subject* will
cover more than one arrangement of topics, according to the various contexts
that emerge.

Yes, I  say we need convergence.  But, the *we* can be many groups as just
mentioned, and each individual *we* should have some purpose or, if I recall
my 40 year old French, un raison d'etre (I've waited a long time to try that
;-).  A purpose, to me, implies something other than continuous mental
gymnastics.  I also imagine that convergence will occur about a moving
target, an attractor basin, rather than necessarily a fixed point.  Of
course, in any ontology, there are going to be many fixed points, complete
agreement by all communities on some notions. It seems to me that attractor
basins will likely be far more interesting, as, for instance, any response
to the question "What do you mean by *we*?"
<JP>


============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================