|
et al,
Apparently this topic causes some heartburn. Let me state that
this is an honest effort to understand a corner case of
ontologies. We have done much of the heavy lifting in ontological
structures, but there are still topics that have not been
addressed. So, yes, it raises questions. Maybe these are
Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns. I feel that the field of memeology is
a young one and as a result there is a bit of chaos associated
with it, but it offers an opportunity to develop a practice.
The value of examining memes can be expressed as some metric. I
don't think we can discount them as worthless if we look at how
they are used. If commercial revenue associated with memes is the
metric, then jingles and advertising visuals have a value in the
$100M's or higher. It is not general knowledge, but there is a
community of developers working to understand memes for sentiment
analysis. There should be some general response to structural
questions concerning marketing terms. Unfortunately, memes cross
just about every discipline as each has their own presentations
for marketing purposes. I would not want to be approached by a
Madison Ave executive asking about memes and then have to tell
them that they are just like any other marketing exercise. I think
Lakoff shows us that the structure of an ontology is critically
important in the ecology of an environment.
PatH wrote:
"My advice
would be to only use the term if you have a pretty exact
idea of what it is you are talking about, and document
that understanding as carefully as you possibly can."
Agreed, to define the problem statement is important. It is hard
to know how to proceed without knowing what the goal is.
Notwithstanding, if we carry this to its logical consequence, we
will wind up with meme entities sprinkled across the ontology.
Maybe that is correct and fine as long as we foresee that this is
what will happen. The counter is to ask "Is there some advantage
of putting all these entities in one place?"
I appreciate JohnS's comments, and did not intend to disparage
them.
JohnS wrote:
1. The metaphor underlying the notion of
'meme' is based on an analogy to genes. But memes are
transmitted by mechanisms that have no similarity whatsoever to
the mechanisms for transmitting genes.
JohnB response:
Dennett actually refers to memes as intellectual viruses. He
speaks about trying to get rid of an "ear worm", a song that
rattles around in your head for days. Alternately, his book title
invokes "tools". He clearly states (from biology) that a surviving
mutation of a species is an amplifier of the advantage that
organism has. For me, this is a restatement of the advantage of
3-cornered trade. A new mechanism that addresses an opportunity
will take advantage of a pent-up market demand.
My preferred metaphor for meme is that of an orchid. Memes have
some attractiveness that makes them useful. In that sense, they
are concepts with attributes of significance. It appears that
humans cooperate with memes for some mutual benefit. That still
doesn't tell us how to recognize them and where to put them in an
ontology.
2. The similarities between biological
evolution and sociological evolution are interesting, but based
on fundamentally different mechanisms.
Dennett is arguing that that is not the case, they are fairly
similar when considered in the Darwinian aspects.
3. As a result of points #1 and #2, the
analogy that supports the metaphor of memes is incomplete and
unreliable.
Since I don't fully agree with you on #1
and #2, then I'll withhold my vote on this one.
4. The most notable characteristic of
memes is their association with some word or phrase.
Lexicography is a more appropriate science for studying the
evolution of memes than biology.
We can agree that all experience is based on sensa, does that make
progress in this arena? I'm not enamored of lexicography in that
it does not capture the affect or emphasis particularly well.
This forum has not addressed any structures or uses associated
with social media or sentiment analysis. This is a high grown
area, and it seems we should understand how the knowledge for
these systems should be structured. Yes Pavithra, it is a social
concept. Now, does that reduce to a previously solved problem?
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|