[topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.

[Max Voskob]

Gentlemen,

You may find this paper interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0312016/

Basically, what they propose there is that you give the clues of the context
as you go thru the search or browsing process

Cheers,
max


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Schwotzer" <thsc@ivs.tu-berlin.de>
To: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
Cc: <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:58 AM
Subject: [topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.


> > My own view is that, somewhat akin to the old biology mantra: "it's all
> > in the context", this is an interesting thread.  Francis Heylighen [1]
> > (couldn't get the site to open, so couldn't select appropriate papers)
> > has written about "learning webs" where a hebbian learning algorithm
> > assigns and massages weights on links according to click counts. Lots of
> > people study the notion of "context". When you think about mapping that
> > into topic maps, the <scope> tag comes into play, and more.
> >
> > Don't truncate this thread.
> > Cheers,
> > Jack
> >
> > [1] http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/PapersFH.html
>
> Context is definitly an issue. Whenever topic maps are
> used to structure something that could (even only remotly) called
> knowledge context is required.
>
> Topic Maps — Data Model:
> "Topic maps are abstract structures that can encode knowledge and
> connect this encoded knowledge to relevant information resources."
>
> What is knowledge? I'm afraid that would be out of scope
> of this mailing list. Just some short statements about it:
>
> Knowledge is something that helps to solve a problem (not a
> citation but it was something like this). Explicit knowledge
> is knowledge that was written into a document (externalized)
> and exists outside human brain.
> (Nonaka/Takechi: "The Knowledge-creating company")
>
> Thus, information resources of TM could be intepreted as explicit
> knowledge.
>
> Moreover, a couple of authors (beside Nonaka/Takeuchi) have stressed
> that every kind of knowledge requires a context.
>
> There are several kinds of context, e.g. semantics.
> I think, topics and associations can be interpreted as
> (semantical) context.
>
> Topic map authors attach information resources (maybe explicit
> knowledge) to topics. In other words, they put the knowledge into a
> (semantical) context.
>
> But this is done in a context, again. Authors do their work
> in a mental state at a dedicated place. Thus, the assignment
> of an information resource to a subject is done in a context.
> Whereas the semantic context can be defined by topic maps, the
> other kind of context isn't usually defined explicitly.
> What's a pitty. Because, this context has major impacts on usability
> of the topic map:
>
> E.g. I trust Ontopias opera topic map because I'm pretty sure
> that Steve Pepper is familiar with the topic opera. I wouldn't
> trust a topic map dealing with motorbikes issued by Ontopia.
> Sorry.
>
> Thus, people who issued or structured knowledge are part of
> the context themselves. Whenever I consult a topic map
> I'm aware of the topic map authors (explicitly or implicitly)
> if they are known. But even the fact that authors are
> anonymous is an information which becomes part of my context.
> This is sometimes called "background context".
>
> Moreover, location is a kind of context. If I'm in the opera
> I'm not very interested in news on topic maps. Thus, the
> place where I am and also the mental situation influences
> my view on information resources and the ability to use
> information resources as knowledge.
>
> To point it out: In my eyes depending an information resource can
> be knowledge or not depending on the context. Right, it's all in
> the context. And context is in a static flux.
>
> Currently, topic maps can be used to define semantical context.
> Such a semantical context is just a kind of a view, like a
> database view.
>
> There are more context type and different context types do
> influence each other. E.g. the location were I am can influence
> my interest on topics.
>
> Context types I know are:
> - persons (or groups of persons (knowledge nodes (Bonifacio)))
> - mental state
> - location (phyical or logical - beeing in a Internet chat rooms might
> be perceived for somebody as beeing in a bar)
> - time (daytime, working time etc.)
> - language
> - interest (Dewey: interest bias)
>
> Comming back to the pizza example: A couple of context type
> were involved:
> Mental state: hungry
> Medical indications: nothing / diabetic / ...
> Food pattern: vegetarian / diet ...
> Location: city / countryside / moon / ...
>
> As far as I can see there are only a few approaches to cover
> more than one or two context types and relations and interactions
> between them (e.g. Manos Theodorakis: Contextualization)
>
> Very interesting issue. But stop this thread if you'd think it's
> not appropriate for this mailing list.
>
> BTW, I'm going to write my PhD thesis about it.
> (working title: "Context based knowledge flows in mobile
> spontaneous networks").
>
> I hope I can generalize existing context models and can map it
> to Topic Maps and design a distributed TM-Systems which
> exchanges Topic Map Fragments based on context via Bluetooth.
> That's the plan. I hope I finish it this year.
>
> I'm convinced that the current scope concept isn't sufficient
> to cover all types of context. E.g. topics and associations cannot
> be scoped. It would be useful, e.g. if a want to get a Topic Map
> that only contains concepts regarding to dedicated place.
> With scopes I cannot delete any topic. I can invalidate any
> topic characteristic. But the topic itself remains in the
> map. Scopes, in the current version, can be used to create
> a view on a topic map but not to contextualize it which would
> include removing topic map items. I think topic map fragmentation
> can be technical means to contextualize topic maps.
>
> Sorry, for this lengthy statement.
>
> Cheers, Thomas
>
> -- 
> Thomas Schwotzer
> University of Technology Berlin
> Intelligent Networks and Management of Distributed Systems
> http://ivs.tu-berlin.de/Schwotzer
> fon: +49-30-314-79834 fax: +49-30-314-24573
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>