[topicmapmail] Re: contexts, attractors, authors and users

[Jack Park]

Hello Bob,

Firstly, the www.bootstrap.org web site has moved to http://130.107.1.200/
but the paperwork on the web has yet to catch up.

BTW: some of the geniology links I have found suggest that Park and Parks
trace to the same clan.  Interesting thought.  Nice to have you respond to
this thread.

Your web site comes very close to satisfying a notion I have had for a very
long time with regards to using the web as a collaborative tool for the
accretion and maintenance of human knowledge.  I plan to explore your web
site with great enthusiasm.

Many moons back, I built a version of the ID3 information theoretic tree
builder, and built on top of that a version of a Kelly rep. grid user
interface.  I had been following Mildred Shaw's work for a couple of years
at that time (around 1986) and thought then (and still think) that Kelly's
work needs to be represented as one of the several ways to construct a user
interface for knowledge work.  My whole project was written in Forth on a
Macintosh.  It worked, but it resulted in decision trees that were extremely
hard to read (translation: useless).  That project ran out of funding before
we were able to take advantage of new thinking about ID3 and improve the
results.  It will likely get revisited in my current Java-based stuff.

My reaction: very enthusiastic.
Jack Park
From: Bob Parks <bobp@lightlink.com>

> Jack and Bernard,
> I'm quite interested in this line of thought .... I've developed a
> similar position with my Lexipedia concept:
> http://www.wordsmyth.net/doc_lexipedia.shtml.  In developing a
> participatory knowledge acquisition environment, I have considered
> both concept mapping and the PCP (Personal Construct Psychology)
> approaches.  If you're considering the development of a tool for
> participatory topic map creation, I'd suggest taking a look at
> WebGrid II (http://gigi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/).   I'm interested in your
> reactions.
> Bob Parks
>
>
> >Nicely done, Bernard.  Just got back from London and the XTM working
group.
> >Got to think about this quite a bit (18 hours in the air, to be exact).
I
> >wonder *what's in a topic*?  I have this notion that there must exist a
> >semantic attractor, one which exists somewhere in a space defined by an
> >author and a reader.  I wonder what that means.
> >
> >Reference to Principia Cybernetica http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/, and of
course
> >to Francis Heylighen's seminal paper on Gordon Pask's work really brings
my
> >thoughts into better focus.  Pask spoke of entailment meshes.  That fit
> >closely with another thread I have been following (Robert Rosen, _Life
> >Itself_ -- visit http://views.vcu.edu/complex/ for more) in which
entailment
> >is a key notion.  A colleague here at work is studying, from a category
> >theoretic point of view, the ways in which individual ontologies can be
> >viewed together.  My naive thought is that if a group of ontologies
exists
> >about a particular topic (various authors and readers), then that group
can
> >be considered as a category itself for the chosen topic.  That way, it
may
> >be possible to look for an algebra that ties the separate ontologies
> >together, quite possibly with some experiential (probabilistic) central
> >tendency emerging. The work of Geo Wiederhold in the algebra area is on
my
> >short list to examine. Probabilistic issues remain hot, but somewhat
> >unstudied at this moment.
> >
> >For me, level of importance shifts according to context.  I am thinking
that
> >a student reader is liable to bring less semantic baggage to any read of
an
> >ontology authored by another individual, while an experienced reader may,
> >indeed, see things differently, quite possibly contributing to a dialog
that
> >enhances the central tendency of the category.
> >
> >>From the perspective of watching browsing patterns, Heylighen and Joslyn
> >have spoken at Principia Cybernetica of a kind of Hebbian learning
> >associated with web links. Harry Klopf, in unrelated work, has managed to
> >take Sutton and Barto work to a new level called differential hebbian
> >learning, and there may be some value in looking at that work.  In any
case,
> >hebbian learning begins to relate to the *experiential* or probabilistic
> >learning referred to above.  But, in my naive view, just following links
> >does not make them either more valueable or reliable.  Something else is
> >needed.
> >
> >I do not believe that topic maps need to be coherent in the ontological
> >sense to be of great value in the community process of sharing ideas and
> >building ontologies. Topic Maps follow a long history of work in
> >constructivist learning research that resulted on Concept Maps, Mind
Maps,
> >and so forth.  What is clear, at least to me, is that topic maps hold a
> >valuable place in the evolution of knowledge, even if for serving no
other
> >purpose than indexing.  For me, this discussion is about pushing TMs
beyond
> >indexing.
> >
> >I believe that a larger participation in discussions such as this will
> >enable the emergence of a new understanding of knowledge, its growth and
> >management.  I also believe that, to make that happen, a new kind of
> >collaborative tool will be needed, one that promotes the online
construction
> >of real and useful ontologies as discussion occurs.  Part of that work
can
> >be automated, and part of it will require human dialog.  Following
> >inspiration of Douglas Engelbart (http://www.bootstrap/org) and his
OHS/DKR
> >project, I have begun to build sketches of software that will support
such a
> >web site.
> >
> >Jack Park
> >
> >From: Bernard VATANT <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>
> >
> >>  The debate over contexts seems quite in standby ... I'd like to merge
two
> >>  ideas posted lately.
> >>  Martin pointed that in definition of a context, user viewpoint is as
> >>  important as author's (even more)
> >>  Jack "converged" to the idea that context is something like a semantic
> >>  attractor.
> >>  What shall we do with that ?
> >>
> >>  If we think of ontologies in terms of nodes and links (or topics and
> >>  associations), the user viewpoint will be the way he browses the
> >>  associations map. Let's take a set of topic maps, linked through
> >>  associations, but not necessarily coherent from an ontologic
viewpoint,
> >but
> >>  a priori relevant to a community of users. Let users browse this set
of
> >>  maps freely, following or not proposed associations. It should be
> >>  interesting to analyse this browsing in terms of trajectories in the
> >graph.
> >>  The result of such an analysis should lead to attractors, from which
> >>  authors could refine their previous conception.
> >>
> >>  Such exchange between authors and users - in fact involving of users
in
> >the
> >>  authoring process, even if they don't know it - seems a way to make
> >>  converge authors' and users' ontology, and hence defining contexts,
not
> >>  from dogmatic viewpoint, but pragmatic one.
> >>
> >>  Does anybody knows about precise works in that direction, other than
too
> >>  much confidential-strategic information ? I found some 3 years old
work at
> >>  http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/BootstrappingPask.html
> >>  dealing with that sort of idea, but not with the topic maps standard.
> >>
> >>  Bernard VATANT
> >>  b.vatant@wanadoo.fr
> >>  www.universimmedia.com



============================================================================
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.
============================================================================