On Dec 14, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
What's missing from this thread - despite the thought provoking spark and intense scrutiny - is the subject matter keeps staying with direct connections between one persons brain and only one other thinking persons brain without ever talking about what a machine or networks role might be in the communication process.
In the work of museums of course if an artist makes a work and a visitor to this place completely gets the message - the ultimate goal has been achieved between maker, viewer, and the space the work is presented in by museum workers...sponsored by funding...all the people that engage their thoughts, efforts, and resources to seek and spread ideas and information around, and keep records to accomplish communication or computational goals as lofty as enabling direct connections across time and geography.
Its not so easy to capture a connection from one brain to another no matter where they are because the meat of it may be too fleeting, big, or hard to document in standardized formats. Nevertheless - brainwaves can connect and can be documented and we need standards that cannot be collapsed by wave functions or hot button choices in terminology. Beauty is too simple to be pinned down like this. One to one connections may be an ultimate goal but is that what ontologies are for?
What is missing today, in my limited view, is what about collective brainwaves? What can be documented and measured there?
I put this response here instead of the existentialism branch because the issue has to do with the real world. There is an election coming up, policies will change. There are emergencies that require organized responses. There is a motherload of historical work being digitized and a total change in media for contemporary delivery - every facet of every thing that one brain might make, be recorded and distributed in some fashion in the hopes another might be interested in has to move on from one person or machine directly interfacing to bigger geometry because one to one is unsolvable...or why bother to solve it, it would just be between those two that got it. Ontologies are the new poems maybe.
Deborah L. MacPherson
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
On Dec 14, 2007 1:24 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
I agree that the notion of existence is important. But that is
implied by the definition of 'function'. Any function f(x) must
obey the following axiom:
For every x, there exists exactly one y such that f(x)=y.
Since the term 'functional dependency' has been commonly used in
the database field for the past 30 years, it is already familiar
to many programmers. Rather than invent a new term, it would seem
better to take a term that is commonly used in one field (databases)
and extend it to a related field (knowledge bases).