Sunday, July 02, 2006
The metaphor between gene, cell and social
expression à [217]
On Formal verses Natural systems à [206]
Link to education commons à [***]
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
I am having trouble with interspersing, as there is no
easy way to make a response ... (this
is a long debated issue in e-forums.)
However, our emerging discussion is a valuable one,
perhaps; and might lead to several forums focusing on the larger picture.
John and I know each other's positions and history and so
I know how to interpret what he is saying and where his ideas might go if the
group was to explore freely a little bit.
But, Thomas; you and I are just talking for the first
time.
Others also would like to make a principled contribution
and I do hope that they will not carry forward any text from the past but just
write to the issues.
I believe that John's point is that we have not really
progressed much in terms of a foundational understanding that is commonly held
over the past 30 years. That tagging
should be integrated with formal constructions such as Web Ontology Language or
Topic Maps.
He says this, even though his position on the poor choice
of RDF is well known. I agree
completely, and also see it necessary to state the obvious, and that is that
OWL constructions are maturing and finding important roles within what is
called the semantic web.
I feel that general systems theory points to the control
over funding and advancement by short term interests. This control has a cumulative effect leading to the rejection of
non-locality as an essential aspect of human communication and cognitive processes. This rejection is paradoxical in that there
is high utility to get to low hanging fruit, but absolute incorrectness when
trying to extend to what is unreachable goals (machines that understand each
other).
The natural sciences have a hard time with this
non-locality also, as we see in bioinformatics. But the core science has to admit to field effects and to
non-locality as part of the real natural world.
Perhaps, Thomas, you could give a summary of your
viewpoint in a way that folks from other parts of the information sciences
might resonate with?