[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Cmaps (was: (no subject))

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:57:22 +0200
Message-id: <03d001c89c72$e7c0b4b0$0100a8c0@Dev>

Hi Pat,    (01)

Neat.  Thanks for the concise explanation.  (But hey, you've only 
got as far as topics and meta-topics.  Still some leeway to catch 
up with the OMG, with their models, metamodels and 
metametamodels?)    (02)

Meta levels are of course very much part of our application 
requirements.  (On this kind of forum aren't we all incurably 
reflective, believing in recursion and, though maybe less 
plausibly, in the ability of others to follow?)  But in MACK 
reflection requires no gymnastics at the formal level, thanks to 
the genericity of the basic model.    (03)

That basic model does at last get its full outlines in the coming 
4th instalment, due "real soon now".    (04)

Christopher    (05)

PS.  Then, perhaps more interestingly (though even more 
frustratingly at this pre-announcement stage, especially as there 
is no room for this kind of stuff in the 4th instalment), you will 
see how the potentially catastrophic computational consequences of 
such reflection (or is it "introspection"?) may be regarded as 
manageable (or is it "inevitable"?), thanks to MACK's close-enough 
match between the modelled and real worlds (itself a rather 
artificial distinction despite its fundamental or absolute nature 
(Now there's a lovely reflective conundrum!  It's the ultimate 
Ontological issue of that "pillar 3" of MACK, still to come, but 
this is some advance notice or warning of such intensely practical 
matters addressed by MACK.))    (06)

PPS.  The PS's final nested reflection - very actual indeed! - was 
in fact a PPS, just in case the coming 4th instalment might come 
across as too facile.    (07)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Cmaps (was: (no subject))    (08)

> Peter has just pointed out to me that this thread has a subject 
> of "(no subject)", which isn't really a subject at all. Now, one 
> might argue that this is quite appropriate for a brief sequence 
> of advertisements for various bits of software and papers about 
> concept maps, on the grounds either that concept maps are a 
> non-subject, or that they themselves have no subjects. Still, 
> following the good practice rule of maintaining a clear 
> distinction between topics and meta-topics, I am taking this 
> opportunity of giving the thread an actual subject, if only in 
> retrospect.
> Pat
> PS. That's all.
> PPS. What? Did you expect an actual topic ??    (09)

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    (010)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>