[topicmapmail] Can a resourceRef be a topic
Sparkes, Peter
peter.sparkes@derwent.co.uk
Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:04:46 -0000
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B92C.DC06B050
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a topicMap, if individual topics have a Parent/Child relationship, can
the child relationship be expressed using:
<topic id=3D"BA">
<occurrence>
<scope><topicRef xlink:href=3D"child"/></scope>
<resourceRef xlink:href=3D"BA1"/>
</occurrence>
</topic>
where the resourceRef points to a child topic with an ID of "BA1"
The parent relationship can be expressed using:
<topic id=3D"BA">
<instanceOf>
<topicRef xlink:href=3D"B"/>
</instanceOf>
</topic>
I want to do this so that every topic contains the xlink to its parent and
children
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: 10 July 2001 04:40
> To: Paul Stephen Prueitt
> Cc: Topic Map Mail; Kevin Johnson; SemioCom; Stand! Unfold! Ontology!
> Subject: [topicmapmail] (( (2 B, (2 B)), ? ))
>=20
>=20
> =A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4
>=20
> Paul Stephen Prueitt wrote:
> >=20
> > As Kevin knows very well, semiotics deals directly with the issue of
> > the primeness of non-addressable subjects, over addressable=20
> subjects.
>=20
> These words sound familiar, in a disturbing way,
> but before I go flying off on a tangent, perhaps
> it would be better if I asked you what you mean
> by them, I mean, "addressable", "non-addressable",
> "primeness", and "subjects".
>=20
> > Kevin and John Norseen and a few others around the
> > world have made this "semiotics" the focus of new work.
>=20
> Okay, just as long as they know where they are in line --
> a line whose lead was payed out in the coinage of Locke,
> a line whose many-stranded cable was twist together by
> C.S. Peirce. It seams that the worled has now become
> rife with many, all too many brave little tailors who
> would claim the "Seven In One Blow" belt for having
> reinvented the twill, and I am getting well past
> worn out by all the not-so-new-tangled factions.
>=20
> > It is this new work that leads to the definitive mechanisms
> > that will trigger, IMO, the true knowledge revolution. I am
> > just now becoming aware of Jon's contributions. It is nice
> > to see a new force.
>=20
> It is nice to be (seen as) a new force.
>=20
> > I remember as I began to understand Daniel Rivers-Moore's
> > tutorial on topic maps, and specifically the issue of the
> > importance of treating the addressable subjects with some
> > increased status. A status that is proper, only in
> > a post later Wittgenstein mental attitude. (I mean,
> > having understood the more mature Wittgenstein where
> > language is used to address the world but cannot be
> > confused as "being the world".)
>=20
> Maturity like that depends on being really immature to start,
> and I think that I can speak with the vice of experience here.
>=20
> > The computer system (all networks every-where) have an existence
> > that is modeled perfectly as a finite state machine. This is due
> > to the crisp nature of computing. A bit is either set or it is not.
> >=20
> > So the formalism that Russell and logical positivist wanted=20
> to reflect
> > perfectly the natural world do in fact reflect (or can=20
> reflect) perfectly
> > the "artificial world" (to use Herbert Simon's term).
>=20
> What Russell did not seem to grasp is that a perfectly=20
> isomorphic model
> of the world is almost totally useless for the sake of any=20
> live purpose.
> What is required is lots and lots and lots of diverse=20
> homomorphisms, as
> in tools as basic as category theory, fourier analysis, &=20
> vector spaces.
>=20
> > The topic maps conceptual model is powerful in that it=20
> recognizes that the
> > computer system has its own "ontology", even if this=20
> ontology is "non-complex".
> > When we as a community understand this wonderful fact, that=20
> the addressable world
> > is addressable in a simple fashion, then we may also=20
> recognize that the natural world
> > does not have this quality.
> >=20
> > The natural world is not addressable in a simple fashion,=20
> without an insult
> > to the system being addressed. Treating a rain forest as=20
> an economic prize
> > leads to the insult (harm) to the world in that region. =20
> (for example).
> >=20
> > This is what I think the later Wittgenstein position represents.
> > It is why I think that Topic Maps has a deep conceptual model
> > that is not JUST ANOTHER IT TOOL, but is something new.
>=20
> Well, I will need to wait on beginning clarification
> of the keywords before I know whether I agree or not.
>=20
> Many Regards,
>=20
> Jon Awbrey
>=20
> =A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>=20
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B92C.DC06B050
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Can a resourceRef be a topic</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a topicMap, if individual topics have a Parent/Child r=
elationship, can the child relationship be expressed using:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2><topic id=
=3D"BA"></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> <oc=
currence></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> &=
nbsp; <scope><topicRef xlink:href=3D"child"/></sco=
pe></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> &=
nbsp; <resourceRef xlink:href=3D"BA1"/></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> </o=
ccurrence></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2></topic>=
;</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2>where the res=
ourceRef points to a child topic with an ID of "BA1"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The parent relationship can be expressed using:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2><topic id=
=3D"BA"></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> <in=
stanceOf></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> &=
nbsp; <topicRef xlink:href=3D"B"/></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2> </i=
nstanceOf></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2></topic>=
;</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I want to do this so that every topic contains the xlink =
to its parent and children</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Peter</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Jon Awbrey [<A HREF=3D"mailto:jawbrey@oakland=
.edu">mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: 10 July 2001 04:40</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: Paul Stephen Prueitt</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cc: Topic Map Mail; Kevin Johnson; SemioCom; Stand!=
Unfold! Ontology!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: [topicmapmail] (( (2 B, (2 B)), ? ))</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> =A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4=
~~~~~~~~~=A4</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Paul Stephen Prueitt wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > As Kevin knows very well, semiotics deals dire=
ctly with the issue of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > the primeness of non-addressable subjects, ove=
r addressable </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> subjects.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> These words sound familiar, in a disturbing way,</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> but before I go flying off on a tangent, perhaps</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> it would be better if I asked you what you mean</FO=
NT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> by them, I mean, "addressable", "non=
-addressable",</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> "primeness", and "subjects".</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Kevin and John Norseen and a few others around=
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > world have made this "semiotics" the=
focus of new work.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Okay, just as long as they know where they are in l=
ine --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a line whose lead was payed out in the coinage of L=
ocke,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a line whose many-stranded cable was twist together=
by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> C.S. Peirce. It seams that the worled has now=
become</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> rife with many, all too many brave little tailors w=
ho</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> would claim the "Seven In One Blow" belt =
for having</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> reinvented the twill, and I am getting well past</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> worn out by all the not-so-new-tangled factions.</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > It is this new work that leads to the definiti=
ve mechanisms</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > that will trigger, IMO, the true knowledge rev=
olution. I am</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > just now becoming aware of Jon's contributions=
. It is nice</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to see a new force.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> It is nice to be (seen as) a new force.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > I remember as I began to understand Daniel Riv=
ers-Moore's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > tutorial on topic maps, and specifically the i=
ssue of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > importance of treating the addressable subject=
s with some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > increased status. A status that is prope=
r, only in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > a post later Wittgenstein mental attitude. (I =
mean,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > having understood the more mature Wittgenstein=
where</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > language is used to address the world but cann=
ot be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > confused as "being the world".)</FON=
T>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Maturity like that depends on being really immature=
to start,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and I think that I can speak with the vice of exper=
ience here.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > The computer system (all networks every-where)=
have an existence</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > that is modeled perfectly as a finite state ma=
chine. This is due</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to the crisp nature of computing. A bit =
is either set or it is not.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > So the formalism that Russell and logical posi=
tivist wanted </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to reflect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > perfectly the natural world do in fact reflect=
(or can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> reflect) perfectly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > the "artificial world" (to use Herbe=
rt Simon's term).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> What Russell did not seem to grasp is that a perfec=
tly </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> isomorphic model</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of the world is almost totally useless for the sake=
of any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> live purpose.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> What is required is lots and lots and lots of diver=
se </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> homomorphisms, as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in tools as basic as category theory, fourier analy=
sis, & </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> vector spaces.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > The topic maps conceptual model is powerful in=
that it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> recognizes that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > computer system has its own "ontology&quo=
t;, even if this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ontology is "non-complex".</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > When we as a community understand this wonderf=
ul fact, that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the addressable world</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > is addressable in a simple fashion, then we ma=
y also </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> recognize that the natural world</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > does not have this quality.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > The natural world is not addressable in a simp=
le fashion, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> without an insult</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to the system being addressed. Treating =
a rain forest as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> an economic prize</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > leads to the insult (harm) to the world in tha=
t region. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (for example).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > This is what I think the later Wittgenstein po=
sition represents.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > It is why I think that Topic Maps has a deep c=
onceptual model</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > that is not JUST ANOTHER IT TOOL, but is somet=
hing new.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Well, I will need to wait on beginning clarificatio=
n</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of the keywords before I know whether I agree or no=
t.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Many Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Jon Awbrey</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> =A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4~~~~~~~~~=A4=
~~~~~~~~~=A4</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> _______________________________________________</FO=
NT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> topicmapmail mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> topicmapmail@infoloom.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> <A HREF=3D"http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo=
/topicmapmail" TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/t=
opicmapmail</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
</P>
<CODE><FONT SIZE=3D3><BR>
<BR>
**********************************************************************<BR>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and<BR>
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they<BR>
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify<BR>
the system manager.<BR>
<BR>
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by<BR>
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.<BR>
<BR>
www.mimesweeper.com<BR>
**********************************************************************<BR>
</FONT></CODE></BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B92C.DC06B050--