Edited
September 17, 2004
Anticipatory Web
5/4/2004 1:45 PM
Comments by Prueitt linked
using “{ n }”
From Mike (a member of SICoP), to SICoP
Hi Paul (Prueitt),
Personally, I am only interested in discussing the Anticipatory Web if you have a concrete syntax that can be compared and contrasted to the Semantic Web Stack as proposed by the W3C or similar technologies like XTM proposed by ISO.
Why do I say this? The SICoP has not been formed to debate knowledge representation. It's purpose is to implement knowledge representation techniques that have been proven to enhance interoperability of current information structures. {1}
The charter is explicit about "operationalizing" the existing W3C and ISO standards. {2} Not debate whether those standards should exist at all. So, do you have a concrete syntax or even a technical implementation of what you call the Anticipatory Web? {3} and {4}
Lastly, quoting from the link you cited:
This conceptual foundation is not completed, but
takes the controversial view that stratification of physical processes,
quantum, metabolic, organism, environment and social organization; is reflected
in a separation of the processes leading to human memory recall from the
processes involved in human anticipation of environmental conditions or
reactions. The stratification appears
to imply that living behavior is most often a consequence of emergence, and not
usually following a precise plan or model.
Are you kidding me?
As a writer I can with all confidence state that if your goal is to obfuscate the intent of the above paragraph - you succeeded. [1]
I believe you are saying that your concept is based on the idea of separating thought processes from our reaction to events. {5} Don't know how to respond to such an idea because you have given us no concrete basis by which to judge your hypothesis. {6} and {7}
Show me a program that does something and I'll measure it. Show me a knowledge representation syntax and we'll try to model something.
Ok, back to your above paragraph. You then go on to say that this separation, which is purely your own invention, {8} implies that living behavior does not follow a precise model.
Your implication seems to fly in the face of common sense: patterns are abundant. Living organisms are born, they live, they die. Hey, Let's model that. [2]
Examples abound without even looking very hard -- the Sims game models "living behavior" and its making money hand over fist.
Does that mean their model is perfect -- hell no.
Just that it is good enough for people to shell out cash for it. {9}
I could go on but I am not interested in debating knowledge representation, as I already know it works.
I've been doing it as a programmer for 20 years ... I've seen it work in the confines of an object oriented programming language.
We are just taking those concepts and sharing them on the web. I apologize to the group for not wanting to entertain this debate. I know I do not have time and I believe the group as a whole will be significantly hindered if we jump on such a merry-go-round.
I recommend at the start of the next meeting [3] we settle this and take a vote on whether the group should spend any time debating knowledge representation.
- Mike
[1] We have come to understand that clear and precise descriptions of an objective foundation to the knowledge sciences require educational background. We are committed to the development of a K-12 curriculum that over time makes an objective foundation accessable to anyone who wishes to take the time.
[2] The Process Compartment Hypothesis (Prueitt, 1995) in fact creates a model of the emergence of a system, its stability and the collapse of this system; all within the context of environments and substructure.
[3] There was never this “next” meeting as the BCNGroup principals have not desired to meet further with Mike.