ORB Visualization
Link to Summer 2005 Taos
Discussion
Center of Excellence Proposal
à
White Paper on Incident
Information Orb Architecture (IIOA) à
Adi Structural Ontology Part I
à
I am trying to get one of the Herman Hesse type Glass Bead Game beads published.... as many aspects of this discussion is going un-recorded.
http://www.bcngroup.org/Macrocognition/10.htm
The problem/opportunity to putting beads into play is the holy grail...
1)
the
formation of categories over topics/subjects having been measured in the past;
2)
the
backward and forward linkage between expressions of a concept;
3)
and
the computation over the topics/subjects with some type of event detection
constraint...
This is ontology formation (semantic extract or knowledge engineering), ontology subsetting (search), and semantic web computation.
HIP (Human-centric Information Production) is more that this.
Human visualization/navigation/inference begins to be understood once one has ontology formation/subsetting/computation.
But in most cases, ontology formation/subsetting/computation is not designed properly. Top Quadrant has worked these issues enough to know how to address them if a Customs (of DHS – IC) CoreSystem - Core Intelligence Vetting Ontology (CoreSystem CIVO) is contracted via IBM’s eCP project. (This is our plan.)
A meeting at work, on Friday, reminded me of how easy it is to let the standard IT design practices take hold of ontology development activity. A pattern of behavior was expressed, not for the first time, but within a now predicable sequence.
One of the “drivers” of this pattern of behavior is the impedance mismatch between IT designs and Knowledge Management needs. This impedance is itself rooted deep in the evolving nature of mathematics and semiotics. Bottom line: the key that is missed by IT is that ontology computation is NOT inference in the fully human sense of cognitive processing.
The confusion about the nature of formal logic and human reasoning should not ever even be a serious question at issue, except that the knowledge sciences do not exist as an academic discipline. This is why we advocate the expenditure of 1.2 B over 5 years to create a K-12 curriculum in the knowledge sciences.
A case in point. On Friday, a real time event did demonstrate a specific behavior. Some will just say that someone was merely being inconsiderate of another person’s point of view. This behavior occurred because a traditional IT person took charge, briefly, of ontology design and deployment. I was away two days and the meeting was not fully briefed to me. As the new designs (for ontology visualization) were discussed, I placed on one of the three white boards a series of topics that were not being factored into the design. One of these was the absence of the simple ability of the calling interface (the user) to ask “how many concepts an ontology has” before returning the entire ontology. The others were related to allowing an event history to be created that one could retrace at anytime and creating proper Scoped Ontology Individuals (SOIs), so that what is being visualized has the appropriate nature of a mental event (clear, complete and consistent).
The discussion continued with me only being able to use the white board to indicate specific points related to design that was HIP (Human-centric Information Production). As I asked for the floor, again, an excellent software engineer actually stood up and erased the notes that I had just placed on the white board. The behavior was one of not being able to recognize that an empty white board was available for him to write on. As he moved to start erasing, I asked him to stop; and as he erased I asked him to stop. But he could not stop until after the notes were removed. The point was that he could not, at that moment, address these points and did not feel that he should have to. The points are not intellectually difficult, but they are not consistent with the notion that software engineers should never have to answer why and how questions. (See the event Structure Ontology Framework (e-SOF). I must state that there was value in what he was doing, but that the core issue about how to visual ontology is lost in the design that he and the design architect has worked out. A higher-level architect (G) sees the whole picture and so there is no real problem. However, there is real behavior.
(smile) Life is most interesting at times like these, and one can see the humor in these types of things. I do see the humor here, and am perfectly willing to step aside from this specific discussion for a week or so. Meanwhile the senior ontologists and I will get a different design roughed out. The design that the software engineers are developing is not for a real demonstration anyway, it is a proof of concept.
HIP requires that the AI polemic be set aside, so that we are no confused about the nature of induction, deduction and other forms of logical/physical entailment. (Yes?) There is no philosophical discussion. There is a discussion about the nature of human cognition and about the representation of sign systems (semiotics) as formal ontologies.
So I have these problems again, how to create perfect beads.
So that we can continue to work the issues; cA, eC, gFt.....
Eventually the BCNGroup d-GBG will exist and will be subscribed to by many hundreds (thousands). Then the funding of the d-GBG interface development will come from the BCNGroup membership.