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

[Andrius Kulikauskas]

Hi Bernard,
     If you'd like, I suggest that you share your ideas at
kmci@egroups.com, a gateway for the Knowledge Management Consortium
International, http://www.kmci.org  I'm the moderator of the group.  The
goal of our egroup is to encourage such initiatives and help them gain
critical mass until they form working groups, which may then possibly
gain official status within the KMCI.  Also, you may find other related
initiatives, for example, David Dodds is sharing many ideas for a
Unified Knowledge Language.
     Whenever you start up a separate egroup, you are also welcome to
share news on your initiative and invite others to join you.
     To subscribe, send a blank message to kmci-subscribe@egroups.com
     Yours,

Andrius Kulikauskas
Director
Minciu Sodas
ms@ms.lt
http://www.ms.lt

Bernard VATANT wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail