"Peter P. Yim" wrote Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:26:56 -0700: (01)
> Thank you for the input, Monica. This is wonderful! -ppy
> --
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Monica Martin" <mmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Monica Martin" <mmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:12 PM
> Subject: RE: [humanmarkup] Notes on Process, Stratified Complexity,Knowledge
> Management, Topic Maps and Ontology
>
> > Peter,
> > I thought you might like to see that other OASIS groups are having
> > similar discussions about Ontology - Human Markup.
> >
> > Rex, UBL has been discussing Ontology.
> >
> > Monica
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rex Brooks
> > Sent: Tue 6/11/2002 9:51 AM
> > To: humanmarkup-comment@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > humanmarkup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [humanmarkup] Notes on Process, Stratified
> > Complexity,Knowledge Management, Topic Maps and Ontology
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I wanted to post a few notes about Knowledge Management, Topic
> > Maps and Ontology because in the course of exploring the element,
> > channel, we ran right into the divide between content and processing in
> > computing.
> >
> > Arguably the separation of content from processing instructions,
> > which is central to the way XML is envisioned to work into the future is
> > necessary. This allegedly allows for such things as the Human Markup
> > Language specs we are working on because <facetious> we don't have to
> > worry our pretty little content heads over the nuts and bolts of the
> > mechanics underlying the use of our pretty little
> > vocabularies.</facetious> In other words, we are not supposed to need to
> > look under the hood and see how it works, as opposed to how it is
> > supposed to work.
> >
> > Fortunately, we have Len, who spends a lot of time doing just
> > that on the xml-dev list, which I suggest you follow even though it is
> > not by any means necessary. The point I am making is that we really DO
> > have to look under the hood from time to time and make sure that what we
> > think we are doing is what in fact is occurring. That's a little less
> > important now that it will be a few years from now once Web Services,
> > Topic Maps, UBL and HumanMarkup, etc, have some mileage under their
> > metaphorical belts.
> >
> > To me the concepts of Stratified Complexity, Situatedness, and
> > the rest of children that have grown out of Complex Adaptive Systems are
> > pretty self-evident and also pretty thoroughly applicable to our work,
> > as far as they go. I'm not really interested in the debates within these
> > schools of thought, I just happily take what seems appropriate to me,
> > and leave the rest--which is all of our prerogatives.
> >
> > While Kurt, David, Rob, Manos, Paul and Sylvia (whom I name
> > because I have some slight familiarity with their views) might all have
> > differences of opinions with me and each other in regard to details, I
> > suspect we all agree that the structural, organizational tenets or
> > principles that the masses of data within most given Knowledge
> > Management Topics or Topic Areas that can be mapped with Topic Maps (or
> > will be able to be so mapped at some point soon now) yield are the key
> > tools for making those fields useful. In my opinion it is in the ability
> > of RDF to usefully extract the datasets from these fields that we will
> > want and need to use in HumanMarkup. That is what I see as the the
> > mechanics under the hood, so to speak that will make our work useful out
> > there in the world at large.
> >
> > For myself, because I am not a scientist, but an artist with
> > some rather odd predilections for science and technology, I prefer to
> > stay in the realm of the general, so you don't see me getting into the
> > details of this very often. So I wanted to say that I think we would
> > benefit from adopting, and adapting, as David has done, the DAML-OIL set
> > of Ontologies for our use, to be added to and amended as our secondary
> > schemata require.
> >
> > For an evaluation of DAML-OIL:
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/reqdo.html
> >
> > For a presentation about DAML-OIL:
> > www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Slides/daml-pi-feb-01.pdf
> >
> > You're all adept at searching on your own, so I won't re-refer
> > to the horrocks paper we studied earlier on when I went and did that
> > 300+ hours of work on our own <facetious>little /facetious>
> > HM.frameworks:
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup/documents/HM.frameworks
> > .txt
> >
> > A Last Note: I suggested to Philip Rossomando that RDF is more
> > amenable to formulating an explicit grammar from the implicit grammar
> > which our Primary Base Schema will inevitably contain. And I suggested
> > to him that he contact Manos about working with Manos on that area with
> > special attention to following the Topic Maps work that is also
> > on-going... I suggest the same to all who want to make a contribution in
> > that area. This is allied to but neither dependent on, nor envisioned as
> > part of, a possible High-Level Ontological Framework Subcommittee, or
> > however it gets named if there is sufficient interest to form it. That,
> > I would suggest, should concern itself with HOW to use both the XML and
> > RDF Base Schemata for the applications, the identification of which, I
> > would also suggest, should be a first priority of such a subcommittee.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Rex
> >
> > P.S. I also tend to ignore dramatic gestures by volatile
> > personalities. In the long term, the work is what counts, not who does
> > it or how it gets done or who claims credit for it.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > (02)
--
An archive of the [ubl-ontolog] postings can be found
at http://ubl.cim3.org/lists/ubl-ontolog/ (03)
|