Wednesday, May 11, 2005
concept of standardizing unique definitions for words
Dr Paraki,
One can understand the general system properties (from local interactions and some model of the global constraints) as to why a project such as yours did not materialize. (One of the possible architecture for this type of analysis is given in:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm )
The adoption of ontological modeling, about the systemic properties related to "what we do" as a society, is in the near future. The Congress is more and more interested in enforcing those responsibilities that one assumes decision makers have when spending federal funding.
The Roadmap is difficult to fully grasp, because the adoption of ontological modeling has the potential for inducing great change in "what we do". So there are two knowledge experiences that one is attempting to grasp when reading the Roadmap. One knowledge experience is what is actually said, and I fault myself for not making this easier that I have. The other knowledge is experienced as an immediate awareness that the second school of semantic science is not the current religion as practiced by funding agencies and the academy. This is why the first part of the Roadmap focuses on the analogy about "knowledge what a car is" when no one has built one yet.
Complementary and Alternative medicine is just one area where the engineering sciences have argued against modeling general systems with ontological models. Why is this argument the prevailing one?
The complex political interactions between religious groups and science groups do not serve either one - or the American public - well.
This issue of "intelligent design" AS NATURAL SCIENCE is a critical issue to me.
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm
The new section 7 of the Roadmap
http://www.bcngroup.org/area1/2005beads/GIF/RoadMap.htm
(version 9.3)
focuses on the distinction made by the media between Intelligent Design and Evolutionary theory. It is incorrectly represented that Evolutionary theory is closed and completed science.
Deming's System of Profound Knowledge certainly helps all of us move towards language with which we can talk about systems.
In the neurosciences, I could ask Karl Pribram if he is able to make some remarks... but he generally does not travel without travel funding.
My own work on the formal models of cognitive neuroscience and quantum cognitive neuroscience is best represented in this chapter:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter4.htm
I am deeply interested in work that uses ontology models to develop neuroscience, and related biological sciences.... in ways that are more profound than is often seen in Protégé type Ontology, and in the extensive work on medical databases and medical ontology. I think that more could be done with less effort.
The notational system that I have developed is at:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/Notation/notation.htm
The application of this notational system to metabolic pathways, and structure function transformation analysis (I think of this in terms Edelman's response degeneracy )
Perhaps I can make a presentation on this subject, and introduce at least one other speaker, Dr Peter Kugler, on the issues of instrumenting the measurement of biological processes - as a step before "data mining".