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

[Bernard VATANT]

 <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.
 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>

<BV>

I set this question - who are "we" ? - not to get any answer or definition,
which I agree is not very interesting in itself, but to invite to some
prudence in the using of that collective term, and before using it make
sure the context gives sense to it, and if it does not, replace it by
anything more explicite.
Anyway, about convergence. My old-fashioned maths education leads me to
give a default sense to that term, (that there is a unique limit). That's
why I answered about unique thought. Sorry about that. If you think in
terms of attractors, I begin to understand what you're up to, and am ready
to explore with you that interesting track. Maybe - I throw it there just
as it comes right now out of my mind -  we can somehow identify a "context"
to such a semantic attractor. It may lead to some "objective" approach of
what a context is, considering it more like the result of a process than a
set of definitions coming out of any fuzzy metaphysical or ideological a
priori ;-)
(BTW, who is Gordon Pask ?)
Any idea about the kind of "semantic metric" in which define the
convergence process and discover such attractors - if any ?

<JP> A purpose, to me, implies something other than continuous mental
 gymnastics </JP>

I wonder who'll take that one :(  ... Hope the project which brought me
here could be considered like a valid purpose ... *une* raison d'être !

</BV>