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.
common picture. The picture is never complete but we stop when the
still painting). The infinite cycle ends when we are satisfied and
choose to end it.
picture and a sufficient number of us want to make it more complete.
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
------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------