[topicmapmail] Not just Temporality in Topic Maps, but a whole approach

[jackpark at thinkalong.com]

Interestingly enough, there is another Simon Grant that
could fit:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~econ/faculty/Grant.htm
This one wrote a paper on learning and discovery.

Both are equally interesting fellows.

Jack

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:26:03 +0200
 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant at mondeca.com> wrote:
>Hi Simon
>
>I've been lurking at that thread, and have some comments
>on your original posting below and some of the follow-up.
>But first, since you were wondering which kind of people
>we are in this forum ("all kinds" is the answer that jumps
>to my mind after almost 6 years, more below), I started to
>wonder who Simon Grant was, and guess I found out at [1].
>Quick cross-checking suggested that this Simon Grant here,
>and that one there, were probably the same, at least in
>some high-level and informal sense of same-ness. Browsing
>around this page yields a lot of interesting food for
>thought, by the way.
>
>Now to the point. I agree with Kal globally, and
>particularly when he writes :
>
>> My approach of late has been to shield users from topic
>maps almost
>completely. There is really no reason at all why an
>application user needs
>to know about the underlying model for representation. 
>I would even say there generally are all sorts of reasons
>why the (regular) user does not want to know, or does not
>care about the representation tools used by the system.
>This is technology. You have techies (say, 10% or less of
>users)  and you have the other kind of folks (90% or
>more). Take cars : you have mechanics fans, who would not
>buy a car without browsing the whole of technical
>specification down to the last nuts and bolts, and you
>have the regular user (like me, as long as cars are
>concerned), for which the best mechanics is the one which
>is neither heard nor heard of. Turn the key and hit the
>road. Same with computers, same with software, including
>knowledge management systems. Regular users are interested
>in interfaces, functions, ergonomy, IOW in the dynamics of
>the system, how they process, query, interact with stored
>data/information/knowledge (as you like to call it). And
>the same person can be a regular user for these systems
>and a techie for those. So it's not a question of how
>human thinking is formatted, it's also a question of the
>kind of involvment and interaction you want to have with
>the system.
>
>Now if the question is : are topic map - based systems
>more likely (than other systems) to meet human
>requirements in terms of interaction, I think this
>question is a non-starter. There are so many technical
>ways to interact with the same formal structures (read,
>the same structured data), and there are so may tools to
>implement this interaction. You can be transparent and
>show the mechanics, or implement interfaces that hide
>everything, or even make things look like what they are
>not, make RDF look like topic maps, and the other way
>round. See Nikita and his famous glasses [2]. Take
>identity : with some glasses, or at a certain level of
>detail, a pack of data can appear as constituting one
>thing/topic/entity, and seen with other glasses appear as
>several distinct entities, etc.
>
>In Mondeca we've been working with the same generic data
>model for six years. We've implemented integrated systems
>around it "as if" it was topic maps, then "as if" it was
>RDF, and "as if" it was conceptual graphs, and what else
>tomorrow, without changing anything at the core. Some
>implementations/user interact as if it were a regular data
>base with capacity for "smart" queries, other a repository
>of reference terminology for text mining tools, other a
>knowledge base, other a thesaurus management tool, you
>name it. The key is genericity, flexibility, and
>imagination in implementation. No free lunch :-) .
>
>As for the question in your last message.
>
> > What sense of identity does this list have? What it is,
>who it is 
>for, what kind of people belong to it, what are the topics
>which are discussed here, as opposed to those which are
>not?
>
>As any forum and any human place, it is what people do of
>it. No formal answer to any of those questions I'm afraid.
>A list has no sense of identity, as far as I know. Maybe
>the members have some sense of identity, to a certain
>extent ... but don't ask me.
>
>Regards
>
>Bernard
>
>[1] http://www.simongrant.org/home.html.
>[2] http://www.cogx.com/?si=urn:cogx:resource:swg
>
>*Bernard Vatant*
>
>Knowledge Engineering
>
>*Mondeca **
>*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
>
>Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459 
>Mail: bernard.vatant at mondeca.com
><mailto:bernard.vatant at mondeca.com>
>
>Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
>
>Blog : universimmedia.blogspot.com
><http://universimmedia.blogspot.com>
>
>
>
>Simon Grant a écrit :
>> Hello again.
>>
>> I think I'm starting to see how to convey where I am on
>this kind of 
>> question - so I'm replying to myself (may I be
>forgiven... )
>>
>> For me, it is really very little to do with formality,
>and certainly 
>> nothing to do with formal logic (though I have nothing
>against formal 
>> logic). Where I come to Topic Maps from is from seeing
>that the TM 
>> approach is more *humanly* reasonable than, say, just
>RDF.
>> (Not that I know anything significant at all about RDF.)
>I approach 
>> these matters partly from the perspective of
>human-computer 
>> interaction, and partly from cognitive science - how do
>we represent 
>> things in ways that are most closely aligned with human
>thinking, and 
>> therefore most easily understood by humans?
>>
>> So really, what I would be interested in knowing is, how
>many people 
>> around here are interested primarily in semantics and
>human 
>> comprehensibility of TMs, and would like (for instance)
>to explore the 
>> ways of using TMs to represent human knowledge in ways
>that *feel* 
>> most comfortable to the people involved. My guess is
>that the majority 
>> here are interested in the formalities, the logic, the
>proofs - maybe 
>> in something close to mathematical elegance. Again, I
>have nothing 
>> against that in itself. Just that, for pragmatic
>applications, for 
>> communication, it is really useful to have
>representations that are as 
>> intuitive as possible. That is a different kind of
>constraint to the 
>> set of formal and logical ones.
>>
>> Is there anywhere else where people of the kind I am
>talking about 
>> hang out?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> At 06:29 2006-06-05, Simon Grant wrote:
>>> I'm not (yet :-) ) an expert on Topic Maps but I do
>have some of the 
>>> same concerns.
>>> I expect to be considering how TM can play a part in
>e-portfolio 
>>> systems.
>>> To me, it depends on the semantic role of temporality.
>>>
>>> In an e-portfolio setting, we will need to deal with
>all kinds of 
>>> records stored "out there" on various servers (who
>knows - blogs, 
>>> social software, whatever). Because it seems
>unnecessary and perhaps 
>>> undesirable to duplicate these records within a Topic
>Maps system, 
>>> perhaps they are best seen as occurrences - resources -
>rather than 
>>> topics. I don't know what sufficient reasons would be
>to motivate 
>>> representing any occurrences as topics in their own
>right.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one can distinguish two kinds of temporal
>"metadata" (though 
>>> I use that word with great caution) or attribute. One
>is 
>>> fundamentally inherent to what is recorded. In the case
>of a record 
>>> of an action, for example, the start and finish
>times/dates are 
>>> clearly to me inherent in the action. The other kind of
>attribute 
>>> could be seen as a superstructure or overlay of
>personal 
>>> significance. This would be of the type that a certain
>action (etc) 
>>> is significant as evidence towards something I want to
>share - say my 
>>> ability as a Topic Maps analyst. I see that as *not*
>inherent in the 
>>> record itself, and ideal for representing with TM.
>>>
>>> The confusing case - here is the semantic difference -
>would come if 
>>> I were, for instance, a historian. I might have a
>particular interest 
>>> in "The 17th Century" (or, equivalently, the years 1600
>- 1700). This 
>>> would be best represented as a topic, so that I can
>work it in to my 
>>> structures of personal significance.
>>>
>>> This brings me on to another angle. It may be of
>interest to me to 
>>> represent all kinds of things as topics of personal
>interest, but 
>>> alone, that remains a lonely situation. If my topics
>are either to be 
>>> shared with others meaningfully, or (perhaps even more
>likely) to 
>>> originate from a pool of common, shared meaning, then
>it would be 
>>> futile to have any hour of any day of any year as a
>topic. The topics 
>>> would not coincide enough to be of use or help or even
>interest. It's 
>>> a little like the threshold for getting into Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> In summary, I'm saying that my current view is that
>temporality will 
>>> be a record-centric attribute in most situations that I
>can think of, 
>>> much like location. But when a particular time period
>is the focus of 
>>> common, or potentially shared, interest, it might well
>be worth 
>>> representing a time period (or occasionally a moment,
>like the moment 
>>> you heard that Princess Diana had died) as a topic.
>>>
>>> I hope this makes some sense to you more experienced
>TMers.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> topicmapmail mailing list
>> topicmapmail at infoloom.com
>> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>topicmapmail mailing list
>topicmapmail at infoloom.com
>http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail