Clearly, I agree, and this is more or less what I said below. (01)
My question was triggered by you saying that self-disclosing information
*necessarily* includes disclosures of the context; then the information
about the context must either *necessarily* include disclosures on
further context, or it is non-self-disclosing -- what would you mean by
that? (02)
Wacek (03)
Ken Laskey wrote:
> Communications is basically painting a picture. I have an idea and I
> want you to comprehend my idea. I look for things we have in common and
> I build my picture using the commonality as building blocks. Sometimes,
> I have to build intermediate blocks in order to make my picture richer.
> You suggest other blocks and we iterate until we believe we have a
> common picture. The picture is never complete but we stop when the
> picture is adequate for our joint purpose (or the purpose of the one of
> us who wants to get the most across -- you may stop looking while I'm
> still painting). The infinite cycle ends when we are satisfied and
> choose to end it.
>
> As an example, this thread continues because we are still painting the
> picture and a sufficient number of us want to make it more complete.
>
> Ken
>
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
>
>> Re: Steve Newcomb's post on Topic Maps (14 Apr 2007 12:54:31)
>>
>> An interesting post with lots of solid remarks. I have one question,
>> though.
>>
>> You say:
>>
>>> All that the Topic Maps Reference Model is saying is that
>>> self-disclosing information necessarily includes certain disclosure(s)
>>> of the context(s) within which it expresses specific meaning(s). The
>>> model does NOT require that anything in particular means anything in
>>> particular. Conformance to it merely means that opinions about the
>>> meanings of particular expressions in particular contexts are
>>> knowable.
>>
>> If I understand what you're saying, the point is that an expression
>> should always be provided with a context in which it can/should be
>> interpreted. With such a context, it is possible to find out what it is
>> that the expression is intended to be a proxy of.
>>
>> It appears to me that in most circumstances you will not be able to
>> provide the context, but rather a proxy, another expression describing
>> the context. Now we get the pains of infinite regress: to know what
>> the context is, the expression intended to be a proxy of the context has
>> to be provided with a context (another proxy, I guess), and so on. With
>> a finite and ungrounded representational artifact, it means that it
>> would be impossible to interpret any expression.
>>
>> The only way out that I can see is to assume, at some iteration, that
>> the interpreter will itself/himself/herself interpret the expression (be
>> it the primary expression or any of its context-...-contexts) in the
>> correct way, that is, that the interpreter is able to (or is forced to,
>> by its nature) apply the correct context.
>>
>> But if such assumption has to be made, then I see no reason, in
>> principle, for why it would be reasonable to assume that the interpreter
>> can apply the correct context for interpreting an expression's context
>> expression, but it/he/she cannot apply the correct context for
>> interpreting the primary expression without it being enclosed in a
>> context-expression.
>>
>> Could you justify your point? (Or explain where I am wrong, if I am.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wacek
>>
>> --
>> Wacek Kusnierczyk
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
>> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>> Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
>> 7027 Trondheim
>> Norway
>>
>> tel. 0047 73591875
>> fax 0047 73594466
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wacek Kusnierczyk
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
>> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>> Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
>> 7027 Trondheim
>> Norway
>>
>> tel. 0047 73591875
>> fax 0047 73594466
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (04)
--
Wacek Kusnierczyk (05)
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway (06)
tel. 0047 73591875
fax 0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|