It is also not useful to duplicate data elements or processing efforts
shared between context1:X is the same as context2:Y. (01)
Deborah L. MacPherson
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics (03)
On 19 Apr 2007 17:20:46 -0400, Steve Newcomb <srn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Deborah L. MacPherson" wrote:
> > Preserving cross-context truths cannot only be specified, the
> > construction also has to also be shown. A formal manner for drawing
> > and documenting the architecture of context is missing.
> "Conklin, Don" <don.conklin@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Couldn't agree more, especially since multiple contexts may be in play
> > simoltumultously (not a spelling error, my term [simultaneously +
> > tumultuously) concerning the same event or issue in play, even as it
> > morphs over time
> That's why it is interesting and useful to conserve and leverage the
> impact of an insight that context1:X is the same as context2:Y.
> * It is not necessary to prove an insight mathematically before it can
> be stated or used.
> * It is not necessary that a context be logical or internally
> consistent for it to provide interpretive guidance, or to be
> meaningful, or to be useful.
> * It is not necessary that a human being be a world-class
> philosopher, or an expert in any ontology, before he or she can
> contribute to knowledge.
> * Moreover, the progress of Science is incompatible with the idea that
> we can know in advance whether we will have the tools to say what
> will need to be said.
> My Ph.D. is in Music Theory. A close friend of mine is a composer.
> He once said to me something that put me in my place:
> "You Music Theory guys are the *undertakers* of music. When you've
> understood it, it's dead. Fortunately, there's always new music
> being written, and it works even though -- and perhaps *because* --
> nobody, not even the composer, knows why."
> He was right. Sure, we theorists can program computers so they will
> write music that exploits our insights (now there's a top-down
> scenario for you!) But that's not where the action is. Not at all.
> -- Steve
> Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
> Coolheads Consulting
> Co-editor, Topic Maps International Standard (ISO/IEC 13250)
> Co-editor, draft Topic Maps -- Reference Model (ISO/IEC 13250-5)
> direct: +1 540 951 9773
> main: +1 540 951 9774
> fax: +1 540 951 9775
> 208 Highview Drive
> Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 USA
> (Confidential to all US government personnel to whom this private
> letter is not addressed and who are reading it in the absence of a
> specific search warrant: In keeping with the publicly-confessed
> criminal conduct of the Bush administration, and with the
> irresponsible actions of the pusillanimous and corrupt 109th Congress,
> you are co-conspiring to subvert the Constitution that you are sworn
> to defend. You can either refuse to commit this crime, or you can
> expect to suffer criminal sanctions in the future, when the Executive
> Branch of the government of the United States of America once again
> demonstrates respect for the rule of law. I do not envy you for
> having to make this difficult choice, but I urge you to make it
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)