Edited
September 17, 2004
Anticipatory Web
5/4/2004
2:06 PM
From Rick Morris (a government employee and sponsor of SICoP), to SICoP
Mike,
You are correct that our domain is implementation of knowledge representation techniques proven to enhance interoperability of current information techniques, and thus operationalization of existing W3C and ISO standards.
How we contour our practice to ensure progress in that domain will indeed be a central focus of the next meeting, to include issues such the debate over knowledge representation.
We will be standing up Tomoye Simplify platform to support constructive conversation that will unfold in a framework reflecting how we contour our practice, and thus what communities are likely to engage with us.
This may or may not result in a place for facilitated debate over the fundamentals of knowledge representation.
Certainly the software can support such inclusion in a non-obtrusive way, if the community deems it consistent with the domain and an essential ingredient of the practice. If included, it would be subsidiary, since our community is not the place for the fundamental issues to be resolved. [1]
Thus positioned, continued discussion of first principles of knowledge representation could well have value if they are framed in such a way as prove useful to those practical folks drawn together to implement as best we can against the prevailing paradigm / standards. I am one inclined to think that an eye on basic science when focused on applied science is well advised -- no theory, no practice. However, inclusion of a facet strictly speaking outside the domain has to be handled with care.
Email is an unforgiving medium since it is impossible to segment the practice using it, and impossible to facilitate and shape the constructive conversation using it. It is largely useless for CoPs, and almost inevitably leads to misunderstandings and frustration. Not much sense in Brand or I trying to facilitate within that framework; at any rate, I do not know how to do it without unleashing a flood of emails beyond your capacity to bear.
When we turn on the Simplify platform that Triple I is providing, which we will contour in line with our shared understanding of the main ingredients of our practice, I would ask that we shift our constructive conversation into that facilitated framework.
With highest respect, your friend, Rick
Attached is my bumbling try at capturing the contours of our domain. Fundamentals of knowledge representation are not included in this depiction, but could be under core technology areas. The discussion there would have to unfold with an eye on the domain, and framed in the appropriate language (exoteric rather than esoteric), and as a help to advancing the practice, which is to implement Semantic interoperability today. This attachment is not designed to launch an email debate now, but as read-ahead for 19 May. If we can get platform operational before then, we may perhaps start online discussion if this is a worthy object. Please let me know if I have radically missed the mark, however, since a strawman that is foolish is a highly inadequate feelings and I am not sensitive (I gave up feelings in 1965 when I first entered the Army).
Attachment at (zipped pdf file)
[1] The opposition from Mike to a principled discussion about the nature of human knowledge and the various theories and capabilities associated with knowledge representation is inhibitory of the type of discussion called for the BCNGroup planning for a National Project.