continuing bead game (on ontologies and rules)
- Thank you to the com-prac forum for allowing this communication: A cross forum archive (on ontologies and rules) is being accumulated atbut the focus of this conversation is in com-prac now. As the core of this discussion may in fact move back to kmci-Virtual-Chapter in a few days.****I am working on some topic map (ontology) technology correspondence and have not felt much of a need to interject too much into the discussion during the last two days.The community of practice issue is really quite important, and I ask that each member of the core KM communities consider attendance at the Knowledge Technologies 2001 conference:This conference has the leadership of the XML, XTM and topic map community. They are giving KMCI a table booth at the conference.Daniel Rivers-Moore and Jack Park are presenters, as am I.I understand that special conference attendance rates are possible to those in the core KM community. This is being done as a community building exercise at my request. Please contact me directly as I seem to be moderating this community extension of effort.**Joe's comments to Scott Allen are all that I would have to say. I agree with each and every point. Joe, wonderfully put. Thank you.*****I have only a little to say about one thing:Joe said:"The idea that true science starts with "observation," is not common
sense. It is the viewpoint of a particular school of epistemology called
empiricism. Both American Pragmatism and Popperian Realism agree with
the idea that science and all human knowledge-seeking start with the
recognition of a problem, and that both the problem and our initial
observations about it are interpreted through our background knowledge."The recognition of a problem is core Demand-side KM having "almost" nothing to do with Supply-side KM.I think everyone would agree - with the aside that the supply side and demand side categorization is overlapping and nested (like the rational and irrational numbers) in a "fractal fashion". This "empirical" fact leads to difficulties in conceptualization of the differences and similarities between the demand and the supply mechanisms - like the biological mechanisms of the action and the perception cycle (Maturana and Verala - "Tree of Knowledge", J. J. Gibson, Robert Shaw).The phenomenon of category entanglement between term reference is a sign (my opinion) of complexity which I have modeled using rough categories (like rough sets (Pawlak)) in the voting procedure routing and retrieval formalism:http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Appendix.htm (which I made public domain in 1997). This formalism helps address such questions as "what is the largest integer", what is the smallest positive real number", and "which of my three daughters do I love the most" (Ranked list will not work here, sorry). None of these questions have answers as anticipated by the form of the question.see: http://www.ontologystream.com/IRRTest/Evaluation/ARLReport.htm for something really esoteric (smile - and in the public domain as a gift of ARL, A. Zenkin and myself) that addresses routing and retrieval in technology systems.The differences in scientific practice tends to be sometimes dogmatic and empiricism is no different. I am not an empiricist since I think that "time has structure" and thus that it is not always possible to repeat an experiment. The set of causes of human behaviors is one way that this structure of time makes an impact (Process Compartment Hypothesis, Prueitt 1995)Empiricism simply has nothing to say about introspection, due to something - and part of this something (in my own theory) is the self.... a non reducible whole that is seen (in Stu Kauffman's new book, in Investigations (2000) ) as the cause of a complex system's continued existence as such. Nigel was also making reference to self and system image in the context of the probabilistic theory of plausible reason (due to E.T. Jaynes). I support a different school of plausible reason founded by Victor Finn (in Russia)Pragmatism (Peirce) and Realism (Popper, Pribram) both "require" that science be more that what can be explained about observations.The separation of ontology and topic map formalism from expert systems is important for reasons that can be traced to human productivity.We can justify moving into a new paradigm for technology enhanced knowledge sharing based on the now philosophical argument that such a shift (no rule representation, only a representation of ontology - so that the common human can make the cognitive bindings that the computer cannot.)This is what I have done in my grounding of the software product and methodology of Acappella to my deep theories.I need a way to demonstrate the utility of this new technology. For this I have needed exactly three things:1) a community of practice that Dr. Art Murray and I can create (demand -side KM) knowledge event maps (similar to Verna Allee's (www.vernaallee.com )) and then produce a large number of micro ontologies that can be used to report information from one part of the community to the other (supply-side KM with a new technology).2) the software tools that Acappella has sent four years building and which is now in a condition that insures stability of the software over a reasonable period of time at least until Microsoft decides to change the XML and COM+ archtectures.3) some minimal funds to do a three month prototype (less than $30,000 will do on a boot strap).I ask for people to consider my work realizing, as Joe said, that some people are better at marketing and some (me) are not, but perhaps knows how to do something special.With respects to all...and this request for thoughtful assistance to community building. It is not only for myself that SOMETHING needs to happen, but for an emerging community.Paul PrueittIt is 2001 if not now then when?