[topicmapmail] what about a "non-hierarchical chart" ?

[Bernard VATANT]

So *we* are converging towards this idea that concepts, words and
classifications are mere tools, meaningful only "so far", existing only in
our minds and languages, and not given absolutely in the real world
outthere. "No Hi" is the name I gave to that scheme in my personal
ontology, but it could be shared. I think to write some kind of
"non-hierarchical chart" to gather people and resources agreeing with these
principles. I even made a logo for it, adapted from Feynmann's diagram ...
See www.universimmedia.com/nohi.htm
Sorry, I *have* to translate this pages from French to English, please let
me a little time to do it.

Maybe we should open an egroup for that matter, since it goes further than
any technical concept, even if topic maps are for the moment the best tool
to deal with it as far as I know. Who is following me on that track ?

Bernard VATANT
b.vatant@wanadoo.fr
www.universimmedia.com

----- Message d'origine -----
De : Lance Otis <lanceo@mail.apptechsys.com>

> I have been following your discussion relative to determination of
> hierarchical sets of topics based on agreements within a community of
> contributors. Here are some observations, some of which are based on
> inferences drawn from your discussions:
>
> 1. There is no natural order to a hierarchical set of topics.
> 2. Words are symbolic abstractions of objects and ideas - topics or
> classifications are higher level abstractions of sets objects and ideas
that
> share some common attributes.
> 3. Grouping and classification of symbols for objects and ideas is a
human
> invention to simplify communication.
> 4. There must be an implicit agreement on the general meaning of the
> classifications within the community of those using them.
>
> We must acknowledge that there is no one set of ordered topics that will
fit
> all possible needs. Needs change, view points differ. What is one man's
root
> is another man's leaf. Accordingly, topic sets must be flexible,
adaptable,
> and mutable. Topic maps must be multi-dimensional and capable of
inversion
> so that they are viewable from the top-down or the bottom-up. Any
> sub-category must be able to be treated as a top-level category. We must
be
> pragmatic: build something that works for a specific set of needs, but
build
> it to allow change and mutation.